Sei sulla pagina 1di 372

Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges

Dirk Proske · Pieter van Gelder

Safety of Historical Stone


Arch Bridges

123
Dr.-Ing. habil. Dirk Proske, MSc. Dr.-Ir. Pieter van Gelder
University of Natural Resources Delft University of Technology
and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna Section of Hydraulic Engineering
Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering Stevinweg 1
Peter-Jordan-Street 82 2628 CN Delft
1190 Vienna The Netherlands
Austria p.h.a.j.m.vangelder@tudelft.nl
dirk.proske@boku.ac.at

ISBN 978-3-540-77616-1 e-ISBN 978-3-540-77618-5


DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5
Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009926692

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009


This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9,
1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Cover design: eStudio Calamar S.L.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)


Preface

Stone arch bridges are special technical products in many aspects. Two of
the most important aspects are their very long time of usage and their land-
scape changing capability. First, for more than two millenniums, stone
arch bridges have been part of the human infrastructure system, and some
of them are still in use. Most of the stone arch bridges now in use are older
than the first century. The only type of structures reaching the same dura-
tion of usage are tombs and other religious structures. However, in contrast
to those, arch bridges are much more exposed to changes in usage condi-
tions. There exist Roman bridges that were crossed not only by Roman
legions but also by tanks in World War II. When most stone arch bridges
were constructed, motorized individual car traffic was yet unknown. This
load now has to be borne by these historical bridges. We should probably
much more esteem the farsightedness and endeavour of our ancestors,
which we often count on nowadays without perception.
Or perhaps we do notice as some common attitudes indicate, don’t we?
In many children’s books, landscapes often include stone arch bridges.
And if people are asked whether arch bridges are disturbing or accepted, in
most cases people consider arch bridges as part of our man-made land-
scape and not necessarily as human artefact. Painters such as Paul Cézanne
have included arch bridges in their landscape paintings as early as the
19th century, which refutes the theory that arch bridges are now just
accepted because they have been part of the landscape for centuries.
Stone arch bridges are considered beautiful because they apply some
simple rules of aesthetics. First of all, they use building material from the
vicinity and therefore are embedded in the landscape. Furthermore, the
genius idea to arrange stones geometrically in such a way that the mechani-
cal properties of stones are used in a nearly perfect way gives the impres-
sion of harmony, whereas beam bridges made of reinforced or prestressed
concrete are often felt as strange.
Besides beauty, the bridges show in a very clear way one of the biggest
conflicts of our human civilisation. In the untiring trial to rationally de-
scribe all elements of our world, we have seen the limits of this concept in
the last decades. Even though arch bridges have been built and used for
more than two millenniums, we still face problems in numerically describ-
ing their behaviour. Only in the last decades have appropriate tools been
VI Preface

provided. Such tools are presented in this book. However, the book em-
beds these procedures in an even wider concept. Not only are computation
strategies and strengthening techniques for arch bridges given, but adapta-
tions of today’s loads to preserve the bridges are also presented.
However, strengthening of arch bridges is often not required: The major
cause of the destruction of arch bridges is the insufficient width of the
roadway, which means not the safety but the usability has limited the life-
time of the bridge. Perhaps we could live with this limitation and give re-
spect to the arch bridges. They still provide us with the lowest maintenance
costs of all bridge types.
Expression of Thanks

This book is a translation and extension of a former German book pri-


marily written during a visit of the first author at the TU Delft in 2005.
Therefore, first of all we thank the TU Delft for the financial support. Ad-
ditional support was given to translate the book.
Furthermore, many persons have contributed by proof-reading and giv-
ing suggestions. Therefore, the authors thank Prof. Konrad Bergmeister,
Prof. Han Vrijling, Prof. Jürgen Stritzke, and Prof. Udo Peil. Additionally,
Mrs. Angela Heller did the proof-reading of the German version. We thank
her for the intensive work. Last, but not least, we thank Springer and their
assistants for the opportunity to publish the book in English, and for their
strong support.
Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
1.1 General introduction ........................................................................ 1
1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of arch bridges ............................. 12
1.3 Structure of the book ..................................................................... 14
1.4 Terms ............................................................................................. 20
1.5 Classification of static bridge types ............................................... 29
1.6 Types of arch geometry ................................................................. 33
1.7 History of stone arch bridges......................................................... 36
1.8 Arch bridges from alternative material.......................................... 47
1.8.1 Steel arch bridges ................................................................. 47
1.8.2 Wooden arch bridges ........................................................... 48
1.8.3 Concrete arch bridges........................................................... 49
1.9 Number of arch bridges ................................................................. 50
References ............................................................................................ 56

2 Loads.................................................................................................... 67
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 67
2.2 Road traffic loads........................................................................... 67
2.3 Railroad traffic load....................................................................... 82
2.4 Initial drive forces.......................................................................... 86
2.5 Breaking forces.............................................................................. 87
2.6 Wind loading ................................................................................. 88
2.7 Impact forces ................................................................................. 89
2.8 Settlements..................................................................................... 89
2.9 Temperature loading...................................................................... 89
2.10 Snow loading ............................................................................... 92
2.11 Dead load..................................................................................... 92
References ............................................................................................ 94

3 Computation of historical arch bridges ............................................ 99


3.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 99
3.2 Empirical rules............................................................................. 100
3.2.1 Historical rules................................................................... 100
3.2.2 Modern rules...................................................................... 119
X Contents

3.3 Beam models ............................................................................... 125


3.3.1 Single beam models........................................................... 125
3.3.2 Compound beam models ................................................... 133
3.4 Finite element method (FEM) ..................................................... 136
3.5 Discrete element method (DEM)................................................. 140
3.6 Comparison of testing and modelling.......................................... 141
3.6.1 Load tests on arches........................................................... 141
3.6.2 Comparison results ............................................................ 144
3.7 Transverse direction (effective width)......................................... 148
References .......................................................................................... 152

4 Masonry strength.............................................................................. 165


4.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 165
4.2 Masonry elements........................................................................ 166
4.2.1 Masonry stones.................................................................. 166
4.2.2 Mortar................................................................................ 172
4.3 Maximum centric masonry compression strength ....................... 176
4.3.1 Model according to DIN 1053-100 ................................... 177
4.3.2 Model according to DIN 1053........................................... 178
4.3.3 Empirical exponential models ........................................... 179
4.3.4 Model according to Hilsdorf ............................................. 179
4.3.5 Model according to Mann ................................................. 180
4.3.6 Model according to Berndt................................................ 181
4.3.7 Model according to Sabha ................................................. 183
4.3.8 Model according to Ohler.................................................. 183
4.3.9 Model according to Stiglat ................................................ 184
4.3.10 Model according to Francis, Horman and Jerrems.......... 184
4.3.11 Model according to Khoo and Hendry ............................ 184
4.3.12 Model according to Schnackers....................................... 185
4.3.13 Model according to Ebner ............................................... 185
4.3.14 Further masonry compression models............................. 185
4.4 Stress-strain relationship.............................................................. 186
4.5 Moment-Axial force diagrams..................................................... 187
4.6 Additional-leaf masonry .............................................................. 188
4.6.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 188
4.6.2 Model according to Warnecke........................................... 188
4.6.3 Model according to Egermann .......................................... 188
4.7 Shear strength .............................................................................. 190
4.8 Proof equations ............................................................................ 191
References .......................................................................................... 192
Contents XI

5 Investigation techniques ................................................................... 199


5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 199
5.2 Destructive tests........................................................................... 202
5.3 Semi-destructive test methods ..................................................... 205
5.4 Non-destructive test methods ...................................................... 205
5.4.1 Ultrasound ......................................................................... 205
5.4.2 Impact-echo ....................................................................... 206
5.4.3 Radar ................................................................................. 207
5.4.4 Tomography ...................................................................... 208
5.4.5 Thermography ................................................................... 208
5.4.6 Electrical conductivity....................................................... 208
5.4.7 Experimental tests on bridges on site ................................ 208
5.4.8 Photogrammetry and lasercanning .................................... 209
References .......................................................................................... 210

6 Damages and repair.......................................................................... 217


6.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 217
6.2 Damages on historical arch bridges ............................................. 218
6.2.1 Overview ........................................................................... 218
6.2.2 Recent collapses of historical arch bridges........................ 221
6.2.3 Weathering of the mortar................................................... 222
6.2.4 Spalling and contour scaling ............................................. 223
6.2.5 Salt attack .......................................................................... 224
6.2.6 Chemical weathering ......................................................... 226
6.2.7 Biological weathering........................................................ 226
6.2.8 Mechanical and physical weathering................................. 226
6.2.9 Deformations ..................................................................... 227
6.2.10 Cracks .............................................................................. 229
6.3 Repair and strengthening ............................................................. 235
6.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 235
6.3.2 Strengthening techniques................................................... 241
6.3.3 Examples ........................................................................... 254
6.4 Arch bridges of the second generation ........................................ 256
References .......................................................................................... 257

7 Safety assessment .............................................................................. 265


7.1 Definition of safety and safety concepts...................................... 265
7.2 Probabilistic safety concept ......................................................... 269
7.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 269
7.2.2 First-order reliability method (FORM).............................. 270
7.2.3 Second-order reliability method (SORM) ......................... 274
7.2.4 Hypersphere division method............................................ 281
7.2.5 Response Surface Method ................................................. 281
XII Contents

7.2.6 Monte Carlo Simulation .................................................... 285


7.2.7 Combination of safety indexes .......................................... 288
7.2.8 Limitation of the presented methods ................................. 293
7.2.9 Commercial programs ....................................................... 295
7.2.10 Goal values of safety indexes .......................................... 297
7.3 Semi-probabilistic safety concept................................................ 301
7.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 301
7.3.2 Partial safety factors .......................................................... 303
7.3.3 Characteristic values.......................................................... 310
References .......................................................................................... 323

8 Examples............................................................................................ 333
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 333
8.2 Examples in literature.................................................................. 333
8.3 Own examples ............................................................................. 336
8.3.1 Bridge 1 ............................................................................. 336
8.3.2 Bridge 2 ............................................................................. 341
8.3.3 Bridge 3 ............................................................................. 345
8.3.4 Bridge 4 ............................................................................. 346
8.3.5 Bridge 5 ............................................................................. 348
8.3.6 Bridge 6 ............................................................................. 349
8.3.7 Summary ........................................................................... 350
8.4 Further examples ......................................................................... 351
8.4.1 Historical stone beam bridges ........................................... 351
8.4.2 Anchoring chamber of the Blue Wonder Bridge............... 352
8.5 Conclusion ................................................................................... 354
References .......................................................................................... 357

Index ....................................................................................................... 361


1 Introduction

“The first bridges men built were in wood, which were suited to their re-
quirements at the time. But then they began to think about the immortality
of their names. And because their richness gave them heart and made bet-
ter things available to them, they began to build bridges in stone, which
lasted longer, cost more, and brought glory to those that built them.”

A. Palladio 1570 (taken from Corradi 1998)

1.1 General Introduction

Only natural phenomena exist in the world of materials. The concept of


technology, which is seen as a real characteristic of human culture, already
shows the following fact by its definition: under technology, one under-
stands the method and capacity to use the natural phenomena in a practical
way.
This statement also applies to the technical product of bridges. Nature is
easily able to create bridges without human involvement: bridges, as
physical features, already existed for millions of years, created from geo-
logical formations by wind and water or as fallen trees that cross a creek.
One only has to travel to the Arches National Park in the United States to
see examples.
However, at the moment in which nothing except the forces of nature
create bridges without the forces of intellect, the situation changes funda-
mentally. An artificial phenomenon then originates. The artificial distin-
guishes itself from the natural by the agreement of intention. Thus, a line,
for example, becomes an artificial phenomenon, when the lines are shaped
into a symbol. This symbol, however, requires an agreement in advance.
Based on this hypothesis, a bridge is considered to be an artificial phe-
nomenon since it is designed to span something and to ease progress.
Next to that, it seems as if the concept of art is related to the notion of
“artificial”. But the notion of art is actually more strongly linked to the no-
tion of technology. Originally, the word “art” describes a high degree of

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_1,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
2 1 Introduction

skill with which a human accomplishes a task. Later on, the term is ex-
panded to the product itself.
An example of a product that deserves the notion of artwork is the world
atlas “Atlas Maior” (later edition 2005) that appeared between 1662 and
1665. The atlas showed the geography of the known world in a quality that
had never been achieved until that time. The publisher from Amsterdam Joan
Blaue writes in the preface of the enclosed maps: “[With them ...] we tread
inaccessible mountains and traverse oceans and rivers without risk” (FAZ
2005).
The human insistence to explore, which drives one to expand his own
living space, eventually cannot be satisfied by maps or by pure conceptual,
context only. But these maps can be a movement towards it. The spatial
movement of humans and objects does have a substantial meaning, not
only in science, but also in the present day-to-day world.
Since the beginning of humanity, humans could only cover large spa-
tial distances in a very long time frame. The individual could not separate
himself too far away from his place of origin. Yet the settling of humans
for 10,000 years after the last Ice Age on the necessity of agricultural
grounds once again contradicts the human wish for mobility. However,
settlement led to an unexpected effect: it paid off by making “inaccessible
mountains” crossable and “oceans and rivers” traversable without risk,
since this has to be done on a regular basis.
The broadening of the skill of the human movement apparatus with re-
gard to the development of speed, with regard to the development of dy-
namic mingling, and with regard to the reach has probably lead to the de-
velopment of improved movement and transport systems, respectively,
with the start of settlement.
The invention of the wheel, as well as The taming of horses, is often re-
garded as one of the greatest inventions of humankind, because there exists
no example in nature of a wheel that rotates around its own axis. The
wheel is the basis for the construction of vehicles that allow the transport
of goods and people in a very economic way. The basis for the contribu-
tion of wheels in transport is, however, a proper condition of the surface of
the roads. One of the requirements is a certain wheel straightness and hori-
zontalness of the roll face. Such wheel straightness also relieves the human
and animal movement apparatus. This is meaningful, because pulling ani-
mals like horses served as the power for vehicles for almost 5,000–6,000
years after the invention of wheel.
The free and efficient movement of vehicles, people, and animals is, for
example, not given for the movement through rivers. Also, very steep roads
1.1 General Introduction 3

quickly result in the exhaustion of both humans and animals and are un-
suitable for wheeled vehicles. Therefore, the wish to ease the movement of
people and goods arose probably very early. The best way to ease move-
ment is shortening and horizontally or vertically detouring to avoid unsuit-
able stretches of the road. Bridges follow this idea. They are structures that
serve to cross obstructions. They not only can be used for various means of
transportation (road and railway bridges) for people (pedestrian bridges)
and animals, but also for passing over water.
When one compares bridges with the above-mentioned maps, they are
both invitation and tool for movement in a double sense: not only do you
show the design of the roads, just like on the map, but you also offer a
physical entrance. The first examples of primitive bridges are the stone
bridges of Dartmoor (Brown 1994), and the stone beam bridges in Gizeh
(2,500 B.C.) in China (500 B.C.) (Heinrich 1983).
The physical achievements brought about by the creation of bridges are
substantial. Even in present times, with the elaborate technical resources
available, many people sense an inner feeling when they marvel at the
beauty and size of the extraordinary historic bridge structures. This is es-
pecially true for the mighty arched bridges of the Romans—for example
the Pont du Gard in France or the Bridge of Alcántara in Spain. Many of
these over 80-generations old structures, like the Ponte Milvio, were
crossed by Roman legions as well as by German and American armoured
vehicles in World War II (Heinrich 1983, Straub 1992). These military op-
erations basically always have the objective of demolition or destruction.
In contrast to this, a bridge is a construction – a synthesis. In this pas-
sage, it is noted that humankind is also a synthesis. The translation of the
concept “synthesis” in Latin is composition, also additio (von Hänsel-
Hohenhausen 2005). The written work at hand is the composition of an
analysis. An analysis again is a derivation, since the Latin word for it is
reductio (von Hänsel-Hohenhausen 2005). The objective of this analysis,
however, is the progress of the actual structure – the progress of the syn-
thesis.
Progress can reach far over the everyday present. It will and must en-
compass future generations. Our ancestors, for example, encouraged us as
they erected bridges that are useful even today.
The preservation and acknowledgment of the skills needed to erect
historic bridges is, in the view of the writers, a duty we have to the up
coming generations. One can best carry out this duty when one defines a
use for the historic bridge structures and extends their utilization time.
Just as work is an inextricable criterion for the merit of a human being,
the utilization of a bridge is an inextricable criterion for the justification
of its existence.
4 1 Introduction

These structures, however, are only utilized when the advantages from
its utilization are greater than the possible disadvantages. An elementary
disadvantage of a historic structure can be the poor capacity for present
day loads. Complying with modern safety codes is not negotiable for any
product, even for historic structures. The mentioned safety requirements of
technically created structures are transposed through safety concepts. In
recent years, a new safety concept for structures has been introduced both
in European context and also on a national level in Germany.
The successful integration of historic arch bridges of natural stone into
these safety concepts is the foundation for a reutilization of these types of
bridges. This book takes up that task.
Figures 1-1 to 1-15 not only provide an impression of the great diversity
of masonry arch bridges, but also arch bridges of other materials. How-
ever, many further fine examples are known. The reader can consult the
homepages by Bill Harvey (2006) or Janberg (2008). Another interesting
example is the Minzhu Bridge in China (NN 2005), where three half
arches meet in the arch crown. Some better modern examples are the com-
pletion of the stone arch bridge Pont Trencat in Spain by a steel arch with
closed spandrel walls, a bridge in the inner port of Duisburg with a flexible
lane that is lifted up in case of ship traffic and thus can perhaps count as an
arch bridge (Bühler 2004), the Gateshead Millennium Steel arch bridge in
Newcastle by Chris Wilkinson with a curved lane that rotates along its
alongside axis in case of ship traffic, the Puente La Barqueta (Langer’s
Beam), the steel arch bridge with suspension above Ebro in Logrono, the
Leonardo Bridge in Norway, or the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge in Brazil
(Goldberg 2006). Besides the success of steel and concrete arch bridges, in
recent years, some stone arch bridges have again been erected in Great
Britain and Portugal.
As the above-mentioned examples demonstrate, the types of arch
bridges change and live on by continuous variation of the original idea.
The presently applied mathematical optimization for defining optimal
bridge variants, leading to uniform standard solutions in the end, will and
has already partially failed. One such optimization requires a multitude of
entry sizes, which are not yet known at the time of the optimization calcu-
lation. Next to this uncertainty, various optimal solutions are often possi-
ble. A magnificent example of this is the variety of living organisms on
Earth. One occasionally happens to find similar organic solutions, for ex-
ample for the limbs, but even so one frequently finds differences for the
same boundary conditions. The constant variation of the arch bridges is
one key element of their success.
1.1 General Introduction 5

Fig. 1-1. Sweden Bridge in Dresden, built in 1845 (side view)

Fig. 1-2. Sweden Bridge in Dresden, built in 1845 (view on the carriageway)
6 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-3. Ponte Vecchio and Ponte St. Trinità in Florence, Italy

Fig. 1-4. Ponte Vecchio in Florence, Italy


1.1 General Introduction 7

Fig. 1-5. Bridge in Toscana, Italy

Fig. 1-6. Bridge in Toscana, Italy


8 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-7. Viadukt de Saint-Chamas in France, built in 1848

Fig. 1-8. Bride in the Saxon Switzerland, Germany


1.1 General Introduction 9

Fig. 1-9. Göltzschtal Bridge, Germany

Fig. 1-10. Stone arch bridge, Delft, The Netherlands


10 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-11. Arch bridge, Valencia, Spain

Fig. 1-12. Railway stone arch bridge, Melk, Austria


1.1 General Introduction 11

Fig. 1-13. Concrete arch bridge, Valencia, Spain

Fig. 1-14. Steel arch bridge, Valencia, Spain


12 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-15. Steel arch bridge, Vienna, Austria

1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Arch Bridges

“Like the back of a tiger, the bridge curves from Jade.”

G. Mahler 1860–1911: The Song of Earth, of the Youth

All biological solutions and technical systems have advantages and disad-
vantages. An advantage of arch bridges is that their beauty is certainly not
to be underestimated. The beauty of arch bridges is often traced back, not
only to the use of natural materials (stone look), but also to the high aestheti-
cal measure. Birkhoff (1933) has introduced such a concept. He defines this
aesthetical measure as follows,
O (1-1)
A=
C
in which the aesthetic measure A is between zero and one, the O stands for
the number of relations of order, and the C stands for the complexity. An
application of the measure can be found in Staudek (1999). An essential
assumption of this measure is the relationship between beauty and effec-
tiveness. According to Piecha (1999), humankind possesses assessment
1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Arch Bridges 13

mechanisms by nature and nurture that assess the effectiveness of a struc-


ture. Objects are aesthetically surveyed after such an observation and as-
sessment mechanism. Birkhoff assumes that a high measure of aesthetic
satisfaction exists with a balanced relation between the observation effort
to identify orders within an object and the complexity of the object—for
example, the new elements. In case of arch bridges, the number of ordering
relations, as well as the complexity, is very limited, so arch bridges are
considered aesthetic in accordance with this consideration.
This fact fits very well with some observations. For example, in Switzer-
land, arch bridges actually act as tourist attractions. For the largest part of
the population, they are regarded as an element instead of an interference
with nature. This could admittedly also be because many historic arch
bridges have high seniority and with that a customary right. The above-
mentioned consideration is also strengthened, however, by the fact that
arch bridges are constructed on many historic sites and with that are then
already regarded as aesthetic. The French painter Paul Cézanne included
arch bridges in his paintings and considered the bridges as part of nature
(Becqué 1983)
But at this point it should be pointed out that the ultimate numerical de-
scription of beauty has not been achieved up to now. However, develop-
ments of the Birkhoff measures have taken place, for example, by Bense
(Ebeling and Schweitzer 2002, Klein 2008).
Further advantages of arch bridges, in addition to their indisputable
beauty, are summarized by Weber (1999):
• Limited deformations under traffic loads (some tens of millimetres in
case of railroad bridges)
• Usability and fatigue are irrelevant (the total strains are often in the cy-
clic pressure load region)
• Application of uninterrupted rails based on limited deformations (no rail
fissures required)
• A high failure safety and robustness (insensitive to unplanned impacts)
• A high damage tolerance (recently, the notion of fitness is also used for
that: a system has high fitness when it stays functional despite a large
number of occurring faults)
• Early indication of malfunctioning
• A long lifetime and period of utilization
• Arch bridges, like all deck bridges, guarantee an undisturbed view for
the travellers
• The construction materials can be disposed of and re-used as environ-
mentally compatible material, respectively
• Excellent insertion into the landscape
14 1 Introduction

However, there are also disadvantages, according to Weber (1999):


• Considerable reduction of the loading capacity by large support dis-
placements (this assumption is however valid for all bridges)
• The clearance diagram under the bridge is not constant
• Complex renaturation
Obviously, such a summary of pros and cons is always subjective. It ap-
pears, however, as if the advantages prevail over the disadvantages. That
would support the preservation of these structures, and with that, the reali-
zation of safety assessments with the aim of conservation.

1.3 Structure of the Book

Petryna (2004) has displayed a very good description of the basic elements
of damage-oriented safety analyses of structures in his paper (Fig. 1-16).
The description shows the following five basic elements: load models, ma-
terial models, damage models, carrying models, and the formulation of
verification equations. These elements can be found in this book, as well.
Figure 1-17, according to Mori and Nonaka (2001) and Mori and Kato
(2003), is another way of describing the time-dependant probability of
failure of a structure as a safety measure substitute without, however,
considering the load and carrying models.
The relatively abstract description by Petryna (2004) can be transformed
into a four-staged assessment scheme according to Diamantidis (Fig. 1-18)
and ICOMOS (2001) (Fig. 1-19). Then, the single points of the process as
well as the personal allocation are mentioned in this scheme. There is
also a less detailed approach for that purpose by Czechowski (2001)
(Fig. 1-20).
Figure 1-21 classifies the safety assessment of bridge maintenance pro-
cedures. However, the maintenance procedures for historic monuments
under protection include some further restraints (ICOMOS 2001, Vockrodt
2005, Vockrodt et al. 2003, Yeomans 2006, Žnidarič and Moses 1997,
Rücker et al. 2006, Jensen et al. 2008, and SIA 269 2007).
That the reliability theory-based analysis can ultimately only be a part of
an over-organized and discipline-crossing inspection and maintenance
strategy is shown in Fig. 1-22. It clarifies the various historic develop-
ments of risk-based inspection concepts for different industrial areas.
Whereas in some areas, (for example risk-based inspection and mainte-
nance) is standard practice in the monitoring of offshore platforms, this
approach has not yet been implemented into other areas such as the con-
struction industry. This is for various reasons—i.e., different owners.
1.3 Structure of the Book 15

Whereas the proprietor of bridge structures is generally the state, other


structures such as oil platforms normally belong to commercial firms. For
the state, meeting safety responsibilities is of utmost importance, whereas
commercial firms are also constrained by market-based forces. Therefore,
safety responsibilities are only a subtask. This is subsequently shown in
cost-efficiency considerations for safety precautions.
Dealing with protective measures, however, is and stays a political deci-
sion. The practically active engineer cannot argue with such political deci-
sions in his daily job. Structuring as in Fig. 1-18 would certainly be ideal
for this situation. Despite this, the systematic by Petryna (2004) is chosen
in this chapter, since it is only slightly bounded by organizational limita-
tions. Before the single emphases are discussed, however, this chapter first
gives some general information regarding arch bridges.

Fig. 1-16. Basic elements of damage-oriented reliability analysis of structures


according to Petryna (2004)
16 1 Introduction

c Corresponds to the targeted loading capacity of the structure according to the


design. Just as for historic structures, extraordinary large distinctions can also ex-
ist here, insofar as the description of the empirical calculation principles for his-
toric arch bridges is necessary to estimate this value.
d Structurally converted load capacity. Not only structural modifications, but also
deficiencies during construction are considered here.
e Time and damage-dependent development of the loading capacity.
f Restoration of the loading capacity by a maintenance measure. One such meas-
ure can result in a partial, a complete, or an improved loading capacity. Some
cases are known, however, in which such maintenance measures resulted in an ac-
celeration of the damage development—i.e., by the use of the wrong mortar—
which leads to damage to the natural stones because of a greater stiffness.
g Effects of dead load.
h Effects of upgrading loading. A simplified assumption is made here that in
time, for example, the parapets are converted, backfills are exchanged, and spare
vaults are filled up.
i Continuously changing effects, such as wind, These effects are normally not
decisive for the massive arch bridges. However, traffic loading for continuously
used bridges can also be reckoned among this type of impact. These can then defi-
nitely become dominant.
j Impulse type effects, such as bumps and hits. Normally, exceptional effects are
dealt with here.
Fig. 1-17. Representation of the time-dependent probability of failure for safety
assessment based on Mori and Nonaka (2001) and Mori and Kato (2003)
1.3 Structure of the Book 17

Fig. 1-18. Evaluation chain of historical structures according to Schueremans et al.


(2003), Diamantidis (2001) and Schneider (1996)
18 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-19. Flowchart of structural interventions (ICOMOS 2001, Lourenço 2002)

Fig. 1-20. Time dependence of the structures’ resistance based on Czechowski


(2001)
1.3 Structure of the Book 19

Fig. 1-21. Flow chart of bridge inspection, evaluation, and strengthening accord-
ing to REHABCON (2000)
20 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-22. Development of risk-based inspections and observation concepts in dif-


ferent industries according to Goyet (2001)

1.4 Terms

The German term for arch “bogen” can be traced back to the old high
German “bogo.” It can also be found in the Dutch “boog” and the English
“bow.” In the German dictionary by the Grimm brothers from the 1800s, it
is called, following Kurrer (2002): “Arch now is the curved, bended,
twisted.” The root of the German term for arch (bogen) lies in the verb
bending. “According to Kurrer (2002), an arch is a concave curved support
framework from double flexural rigid building materials, in a structural
sense.”
Pauser (2003) writes on arch bridges: “Arches derive their high struc-
tural efficiency from the utilization of the compression cross section.”
Pauser (2002) defines an arch as “a curved compression member with a
transverse load.”
1.4 Terms 21

Weber (1999) defines: “An arch appears when a rod shaped (line
shaped) support framework, whose system line is located underneath its
tangents, is also concave shaped. The support framework experiences two
translatory movement restraints in each support in its main curvature
plane. Its construction materials are pull, push and pressure capable.”
In contrast to that word exists the term “vault.” The origin of the term
“vault” (German: Gewölbe) probably lies in the Roman term “camera.”
This term is applied to curved ceilings and eventually not only to the ceil-
ings themselves but also to the space below the ceiling: “... camera became
the broad term for the entire room that is covered by the ceiling.” This is
how it is called in the Grimm dictionary (following Kurrer 2002). Later on,
the term vault was ascribed back to the support structure again. Already in
1735, the following term definition can be found: “a ceiling shaped from
an arch of stones.” In 1857, the term was extended to other materials as
well (Kurrer 2002).
The definition that domes carry out their support function only by com-
pression-capable construction materials with negligible tensile resistance
was occasionally disputed. But as the following examples prove, the defi-
nitions of the term “vault” display a great divergence.
Haser and Kaschner (1994) define: “With vault bridges, whelmed sup-
port structures are considered with an in front view curved support axis,
which geometrically demonstrate a surface shape based on their limited
cross-sectional height compared to their large cross-sectional width and
with that distinguish themselves from the rod shaped considered arch
bridges.”
Lueger (from Weber 1999) defines: “A vault is a stone ceiling assem-
bled from wedge-shaped stones that as a result impends freely and trans-
fers its operating loads and own weight to walls and columns.”
Mörsch (from Weber 1999) defines: “The vault bridges can be regarded
as arched girders from a static point of view, because they exert a horizon-
tal push as a result of vertical loads.”
Dimitrov (from Weber 1999) defines: “Vaults are arched girders, whose
statue is based on the pressure line.”
Kurrer (from Weber 1999) defines: “A support structure is a vault when
the support function, required as safeguard for traversing a space, is only
realized by compression proof construction materials with a negligible ten-
sile resistance.”
Weber (1999) defines: “A vault bridge appears as a support structure to
cross over roads and obstacles. This support structure is characterized by a
curved system surface with either only parabolic or parabolic and elliptic
points out of the sides plus a clearance of at least 2.0 m. Its material is
compression capable with a negligible small tensile resistance.”
22 1 Introduction

In the common parlance, the distinction between arches and vaults is


hardly noticed. There are various definitions for culverts as special types
of vaults and arch bridges, respectively. According to Mörsch (1999), cul-
verts can be distinguished by small spans (<8 m), by a high earth fill above
the key, and by a high rise–span ratio (f/l > 1/3). Other publications state a
span of 2 m (Orbán 2004) or 3 m (Bién and Kamiński 2004). Mörsch
(1999) furthermore discerns river and valley bridges from vaults. River
bridges thus distinguish themselves by flattened arches and greater spans,
and valley bridges by high columns and semi circular-shaped arches.
The terms for the single components of a vault bridge are displayed in
Figs. 1-23 and 1-24. English terms and definitions of arch bridge elements
can be found in Griefe (2006). A radial array of stones is regarded as a real
vault, whereas a false vault exists of cantilevers.
The integration of vaults and arch bridges, in the classification of
bridges respectively, follows in the next section. The various kinds of vault
bridges are displayed in Fig. 1-25.

Fig. 1-23. Elements of stone arch (vault) bridges according to Huges and Blackler
(1997)
1.4 Terms 23

Keystone/Crown

Fig. 1-24. Terms of stone arch (vault) bridges according to Koch (1998)

Further terms for special types of bridges are only touched upon hereaf-
ter, because they are reserved for education on window arches. A stilted
arch has an elongation between curvature and springing. The springings lie
at different heights in case of rising or single-hip arches. Further notations
for arch bridges are round arches, flat bow, rising, segmental arches, ellip-
tical arches, basket arches, shoulder, collar plunge, panel, pointed, lancet
arches, clover leaf or trefoil arches, fan, jagged, keel, saddle-backed cop-
ing, flame arches, curtain arches, tudor arches, horseshoe arches, and plunge
arches. The arch shapes for vaults bridges will still be treated later on.
24 1 Introduction

Arched lintel Bracket arch

Horseshoe arch Stalked arch

Stilted arch False vault

Cheek = Cloister Jack arch


Fig. 1-25. Types of arches according to Koch (1998)
1.4 Terms 25

An exception is illustrated by the Roman description of the bridge for


overpassing: “Aquaduct.” This term stems from the Latin term aquae ductus
= water conduit. This refers to antique Roman constructions that, as arch
bridge, often transport an open or a closed water channel to a settlement.
The fillings of a vault bridge lying between the vault and the roadway
are denoted as backfilling. Backfilling can be developed differently, both
constructively and in the choice of materials. The backfilling can thus con-
sist of
• unbound imported fill (loose material)
• reinforced soil by means of injection
• concrete or walled support
• hollows for weight saving, alongside arranged fittings (front and between
alongside the walls) (Haser and Kaschner 1994)
With many bridges, one has attempted to achieve weight saving by hol-
lows and openings in the backfilling. Thus, spare vaults are incorporated in
numerous bridges. These spare vaults can run both in longitudinal and
transverse directions. While an example of spare vaults in longitudinal di-
rection is the Orleans Bridge by Perronet (Fig. 1-26), an example of spare
vaults in transverse direction is the Verde Bridge in Italy (Fig. 1-27). The
spare vaults can be arranged differently, often parallel, sometimes on top
of each other, or even irregularly. In many cases, the spare vaults are cov-
ered by spandrel walls. As a rule, fully closed spandrel walls are, however,
not incorporated for spans greater than 70 m to avoid unwanted stiffening
by the spandrel walls. Melbourne and Tao (1995, 1998, 2004) are men-
tioned as further literature for bridges with open spandrel walls.
Towards the end of the 19th century, however, spare vaults were again
increasingly disguised by spandrel or front walls. In Italy, one presumes
that all bridges with a span over 20 m contain spare vaults in an arbitrary
form. Towards the end of World War II, spare vaults were only very sel-
dom incorporated. As a rule, the bridges were entirely backfilled, because
the labour costs for the construction of spare vaults were greater than the
material costs (Brencich and Colla 2002).
One of the first bridges with longitudinal spare vaults was the Westmin-
ster Bridge in London. In 1748, it was decided, after settling occurred at
Pillar 4, to construct adjacent arches with smaller vaults and with the ap-
plication of spare vaults with a lower deadweight to decrease the loads on
the foundations (Brencich and Colla 2002).
26 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-26. Longitudinal spare vaults after Brencich and Colla (2002)

Fig. 1-27. Transverse spare vaults in the Verde Viaduct in Italy, constructed
1883–1889, span 18.5 m, after Brencich and Colla (2002)

Although spare vaults with very flat arches, with elliptical arches, and
even with pointed arches can occasionally be found, spare vaults are usu-
ally constructed as half-circular arches to limit the horizontal loads on the
walls of the spare vault, especially with the front walls as the outer wall. In
the case of very flat arches (segmental arches) in the spare vault, metal
chains are used halfway to transfer the horizontal loads. The layers of the
spare vault are chosen in such a way that the loads on the walls of the
spare vault generate a compression arch line that follows the main arch
(Schaechterle 1937, 1942).
The application of multi ring arches in the main arch at the connection
to the spare vaults occasionally leads to separation of the arches. This con-
struction solution was frequently applied at the end of the 19th and the
1.4 Terms 27

start of the 20th century. An original solution to the problem of separation


of arches can be found at the Badstrassen Bridge in Berlin. This bridge
was constructed between 1861 and 1864. It involves a skewed multi ring
bridge across six spans. In two spans, the skewness is achieved through the
shifted string of straight sectors of arches. These arch sectors are delimited
in contact sector to the nearest row of arches by the front walls. Addition-
ally, a front wall is located in the middle of such a sector of arches, as well.
The front walls end at the springing sector. The connection between the
front walls of the single arrays is achieved through spare vaults across the
springing. These spare vaults are also filled with scrap rock and mortar. A
minimal weight for simultaneous regular support of the main arch is ac-
complished by the combination of stiffening walls and filled spaces. Next
to the application of spare vaults in the backfilling, they are also regularly
used in the pillars (Brencich and Colla 2002).
The possibility of multi ring arches must also be checked when no multi
ring arches are visible from the outside of the arches. Especially in the
second half of the 19th century through the thirties of the 20th century, the
multi ring arches were often disguised by natural stones in the edge region.
Thereby, the impression of a thicker arch is created. Actually, significant
distinctions can appear between the apparent thickness of the arches and
the actual thickness. The Cornigliano Bridge (Italy) from the year 1932 is
mentioned here as an example. Additionally, the thickness of the arches in
the inner sector can often indicate significant variances, since stones are
arranged with varying accuracy and rise up to various depths in the back-
filling (Brencich and Colla 2002).
Also, the springing construction outside and inside often points out dis-
tinctions, as shown by the example of the Verde Bridge in Italy in Fig. 1-28.
Further examples of the distinction between visible and structural compo-
sitions are shown in Figs. 1-29 and 1-30.
After this rough introduction to some of the arch bridge elements, this
bridge type shall be integrated into a general bridge system.
28 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-28. Construction of abutments in the Verde Viaduct. The left image shows
the visible springing and the right image shows the actual inner construction as
multiple shelled stonework arches with overhanging springing stones (Brencich
and Colla 2002).

Fig. 1-29. Construction from the springings at semi elliptical arches (from Brencich
and Colla 2002). Visible springings must not coincide with the static springing
1.5 Classification of Static Bridge Types 29

Fig. 1-30. Examples of a pillar construction after Brencich and Colla (2002)

1.5 Classification of Static Bridge Types

The ways to design bridges in terms of statical systems are limited.


Schlaich (2003) has introduced a typology of bridges as shown in Fig. 1-31.
Historically, the statical systems were determined by the mechanical prop-
erties of the building material, usually taken from the vicinity. However,
with the development of new building materials, especially steel and com-
posite materials such as reinforced concrete, the possibilities for bridge de-
sign increased and traditional limits were exceeded. The longest arch
bridge worldwide is the Lupu Bridge in Shanghai, China, with a span of
550 m (Chen 2008). Dubai plans to build the Bur Dubai-Deira arch bridge
with a span of 667 m (Chen 2008). In China, arch bridges with an incredi-
ble span of 1,000 m are planned (Čandrlić et al. 2004, Martínez 2004). Such
spans can only be achieved with advanced construction materials.
Whereas in historical times location and shape of the bridges were
strongly limited, nowadays architects and engineers experience more
freedom in the choice of bridge type by choosing from the tool box of
materials.
Historical building materials were axial tensile force-capable ropes, ax-
ial compression-capable masonry, and bending and axial force-capable
wood. However, wood geometries were limited by biological limitations,
for example the size of trees. Using these materials, suspension bridges
with ropes, arch bridges with masonry, and beam bridges with wood were
constructed for probably more than two millenniums.
30 1 Introduction

An arch bridge and a suspension bridge in these concepts are the assem-
bly of several single structural elements in such a way that the experi-
enced force types comply optimally with the capable force types. If such
an arch structure is designed, the location of the roadway can either be up
on the arch or suspended from the arch. The latter is not found for stone
arch bridges but for steel arch bridges. Furthermore, the so-called Langer’s
Beam is distinguished by not transfering horizontal loads to the foundation
but keeping the horizontal forces inside the roadway by tensile structural
elements.
However, in the context here, a more appropriate classification of arch
bridges is shown in Fig. 1-32, originating from Bién and Kamiński (2004).
The classification considers the building material, the arch geometry, the
arch thickness, the number of spans, and the type of the front or spandrel
wall.
Bridges can cross the obstacle either in rectangular form or in another
angle. Bridges crossing differently than in rectangular form are called
skewed bridges. Skewed masonry arch bridges are classified according to
the joints pattern (Figs. 1-33 and 1-34).
A detailed discussion of skewed, multi ring arch and multi span bridges
is not part of this book. For skewed bridges, please refer to Chandler and
Chandler (1995), Choo and Gong (1995), Melbourne (1998), and Hodgson
(1996); for multi ring arch bridges, please refer to Gilbert and Melbourne
(1995), Gilbert (1998), and Drei and Fontana (2001). For multi span
bridges, detailed information can be found in Molins and Roca (1998) and
Fanning et al. (2003).
Figure 1-31 shows that the arch shape is an important property for the
classification of stone arch bridges. Therefore, this property will be dis-
cussed in detail in the next section.
1.5 Classification of Static Bridge Types 31

Fig. 1-31. Typology of bridges according to Schlaich (2003)


32 1 Introduction

Fig. 1-32. Typology of stone arch bridges according to Bién and Kamiński (2004)
1.6 Types of Arch Geometry 33

Joints parallel to the English or helicoidally French or orthogonal


springing method Method (Joints cut the
middle line of the arch
rectangular)
Fig. 1-33. Typology of joint patterns in skewed masonry arch bridges according to
Melbourne (1998)

Fig. 1-34. Example of protruding stones to achieve skewness

1.6 Types of Arch Geometry

In the section on terms, it was indicated that arches are curved and possess
a curvature. The selection of the curvature and the geometry of the arch is
34 1 Introduction

based on a maximum match between the line of thrust and the arch geome-
try. The line of thrust depends heavily on the type of loading. Therefore,
for example, a circular arch is the optimal choice for a constant radial load
(Fig. 1-35 left), a parabolic arch results from a constant vertical uniform
load (Fig. 1-35 middle), and a catenary arch is the optimum for constant
dead load of the arch (Fig. 1-35 right) (Petersen 1990).

Fig. 1-35. Optimal arch shape according to different loading patterns (Petersen
1990)

The term “line of thrust” describes the geometry under which the load is
only transferred by axial forces, here it is being transferred by compression
forces. It can also be compared to ropes, which transfer only axial tensile
forces. The affinity between ropes and arches also becomes visible by the
choice of the catenary arch geometry.
However, under realistic conditions, load changes and some further
conditions such as construction boundaries have to be considered when de-
signing the arch shape. Table 1-1 gives an overview about possible arch
shapes. The table mentions the circular arch, the parabolic arch, the ellipti-
cal arch, and the basket arch. The basket arch is a particular case of the cir-
cular arch since it is assembled from several circles with different radii. A
further arch shape is the cycloid. A cycloid is created as the trace of a point
inside a circle, when a circle is rolled on a certain line, usually a straight
line. It is therefore related to the circular arch. Formulas for the computa-
tion of certain geometries can be found in Petersen (1990). Weber (1999)
furthermore refers to Kammüller and Swida, mentioning a parable
fourth order for an earth backfilled arch bridge. And, last but not least,
Weber (1999) also mentions a sinus curve and a half wave as arch shape.
The identification of the exact arch curvature is often difficult, as shown
in Fig. 1-36. In Fig. 1-36, a historical reinforced concrete vault is shown.
The Santa Trinità bridge in Florence is chosen to illustrate the difficulties
in a second example. Ferroni assumed in 1808 that the arch geometry fol-
lowed a basket arch with six circular segments. Brizzi suggested two
parabolic arches in 1951, whereas Torricelli guessed a logarithmic
curve (Corradi 1998).
1.6 Types of Arch Geometry 35

Table 1-1. Types of arch geometries


Arch type Continuous arch Cross vault
Steep arch Low-pitched arch

Half-circular
arch or seg-
mental arch

Parabolic arch

Elliptic arch or
elliptic seg-
ment arch

Basket arch

Fig. 1-36. Arch shape of a historical concrete vault

The application of different geometries was strongly related to different


historic epochs. For example, the Romans mainly used the half-circular
arch. However, the required rise-to-span ratio yielded a major bridge
height and consequently to long driveways with a significant slope. This
36 1 Introduction

caused certain problems, especially in cities. After the 16th century, more
and more basket arches, elliptical and centenary arches became popular,
since this shape of arches avoided the long driveways and slopes.

1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges

The application of arches and vaults for bridging space is probably several
thousand years old. Barrel vaults with a span of more than 1 m were al-
ready built about 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamic burial chambers (Kurrer
2002). Von Wölfel (1999) mentions the first known vault in the royal
grave of Ur about 4,000 B.C. Also, the Sumerians and the Old Egyptians
knew the vault (Heinrich 1983, Martínez 2004, von Wölfel 1999).
There are many different theories on how this type of structure was in-
vented. However, final proof of these theories is virtually impossible. One
theory claims that the overturning of false vaults yielded to the first arches.
Other theories consider the refinement of support stone elements or the
subdivision of stone beams into single elements as shown in Fig. 1-37
(Kurrer 2002, Heinrich 1983).

Fig. 1-37. Subdivision of stone beams into single elements

Van der Vlist et al. (1998) describes the development of arch bridges
from stone heaps over small creeks. Interestingly, Bühler (2004) mentions
the construction of natural bridges in the same way by Peruvian Indians.
Besides the mentioned first constructors of arch bridges, the old Greeks
also knew the fault and arch structure. However, they did not pay much at-
tention to it since they preferred strictly horizontal and vertical structural
elements. The Greek vaults were only applied late (after 350 B.C.) and
only used with small spans (less than 10 m) (Weber 1999). At that time, the
Greeks were not the only one to build vaults. Also, the Nabatäer on the
Arabian peninsula used vaults heavily for the covering of cisterns. Besides
that, the Nabatäer are well-known for the mountain city of Petra in Jordan.
A first major step in the development of experienced arch bridges was
during the time of the Etruscans. The Etruscans settled in the Northern
1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges 37

middle of Italy before the time of the Roman Empire. The Etruscans have
been seen as the inventor of the wedge stone arch. In wedge stone arches,
every stone has a wedge-type shape, which allows a better shape of the
arch compared to ashlar-shaped stones. However, the Etruscans still did
not know mortar. And still, the placing of the stones in terms of adjustment
of joints towards the circle centre was mainly done with low quality.
A second step in the development of arch bridges was done during the
time of the Roman Empire. The Romans not only improved the quality of
the placement of the stones significantly, but also invented the mortar
and pentagonal-shaped stones to improve the link between the arch and the
spandrel walls. This permitted a radical improvement from wide vaults
built by the Etruscans to wide-spanned arch bridges with up to 36 m spans,
such as the bridge in Alcántara in Spain. The bridge about the Teverone
(nowadays Anio) close to Salario in Italy is one of the oldest stone arch
bridges of the Romans. The time of construction has been dated to 600
B.C. The bridge was destroyed about 1,000 years after constructions by the
East Goths (546 A.D.). The reconstruction was started in 569 A.D. The
bridge had a span of 22 m and a rise of 11 m.
The ratio of ½ for rise to span already shows a major problem of the
Roman arch bridges. Such high-rise bridges required steep ramps, which
were difficult to cross by carriages. A second problem of the Roman
bridges was wide piers. Here, the Romans developed countermeasures. Ei-
ther the piers were constructed with further openings to permit an extended
water flow in case of flooding or they simply positioned the superstructure
of the bridge very high above the valley. An example of the first technique
is the Fabricius Bridge in Rome. The bridge was probably constructed in
62 B.C. Interestingly, the Fabricius bridge is build on a complete circle:
the upper part of the circle forms the arch of the bridge and the lower part
of the circle forms an earth arch in the ground.
A further important Roman stone arch bridge is the bridge towards the
Engelsburg (Leonhardt 1982). This bridge was constructed around 137 A.D.
The bridge has long been considered one of the most beautiful bridges be-
cause when the water is smooth, the arch circle is closed by the mirror image
in the water. The Romans strived for such expression of harmony.
Due to the excellent stonecutter work and the good foundations, many
Roman arch bridges are still able to carry loads (von Wölfel 1999, Brown
1994, Zucker 1921, Jurecka 1979).
Gazzola (1963) published a catalogue of 293 known Roman arch bridge
structures (von Wölfel 1999, Leliavsky 1982). According to Weber (1999),
about 330 Roman arch bridges still exist. Most of these bridges are half-
circular arch bridges, and some of them are already segmental circular arch
bridges. In his book, O’Connor (1994) especially mentions the segmental
arch Pont St. Martin in Northern Italy, built around 25 B.C. and reaching a
38 1 Introduction

span of 35.6 m. Most Roman arch bridges were built between 50 B.C. and
150 A.D. (Gaal 2004).
The high quality of the Roman bridges was possible because of the
strong requirement of a sound Roman road system. Furthermore, the road
system was the basis for the existence of the Roman Empire itself. Accord-
ing to Fletcher and Snow (1976), the length of the road system reached a
length of 65,000 miles. The road system permitted a daily distance of
about 85 km. However, the Roman courier service “Cursus Publicus”
reached a daily distance of up to 335 km, with changing horses and couri-
ers which was an incredible value for that time.
Under Emperor Trajan (98–117 A.D.), the Italian provinces of the Roman
Empire had a road system of 16,000 km and about 8 million inhabitants.
Therefore, in the core regions of the Roman Empire, a ratio of 2 km road per
1,000 inhabitants was reached (Von Wölfel 1999). In comparison, Germany
currently has reached a value of 2.7 km per 1,000 inhabitants. Such high val-
ues could only be achieved by a strong economy. The Gross Domestic Prod-
uct of the Roman Empire was at least 10% above the average Gross Domes-
tic Product of the rest of the world at that time (Tables 1-2 and 1-3). The only
region with a comparably strong economy was China.
Not only road bridges were of major importance in the Roman Empire, but
viaducts—namely, another application of bridges—were also very important.
Several of the best known Roman bridges are viaducts, such as the Pont du
Gard (Garbrecht 1995). The viaduct of Segovia, probably constructed be-
tween 81 and 96 A.D., still reaches a distance of 818 m and the maximal
height of 28 m (Garbrecht 1995). If one believes a painting by Zeno Diemer
(Garbrecht 1995), then the intersection of Roman water supply pipelines such
as the Aqua Claudia/Aqua Anio Novus with the Aqua Marica/Tepula/Julia
was carried out at several levels and reminds one very much of modern
highway intersections. The Roman water supply reached values comparable
to modern water supply values (more than 140 litres per person per day).

Table 1-2. Per capita income in 1990 US dollars for different world regions (Streb
2003)
Average per capita income in 1990 US dollar in the year
Land/region 0 1000 1820 1998
Western Europe 450 400 1,232 17,921
USA, Canada 400 400 1,201 26,146
Japan 400 425 669 20,413
Latin America 400 400 665 6,795
Eastern Europe and USSR 400 400 667 4,354
Asia without Japan 450 450 575 2,936
Africa 444 440 418 1,368
World 444 435 667 5,709
1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges 39

Table 1-3. Average economical growth in percent for different world regions
(Streb 2003)
Average economical growth in % in the years
Land/Region 0–1000 1001–1820 1821–1998
Western Europe –0.01 0.14 1.51
USA, Canada 0.00 0.13 1.75
Japan 0.01 0.06 1.93
Latin America 0.00 0.06 1.22
Eastern Europe and USSR 0.00 0.06 1.06
Asia without Japan 0.00 0.03 0.92
Africa 0.00 0.00 0.67
World 0.00 0.05 1.21

Besides the Romans, the Persians also constructed arch bridges over a
long period, presumably from 500 B.C. until 500 A.D. These arch bridges
were often elements of piled up dams. Some authors assume that Roman
constructions styles strongly influenced Persian bridge construction (von
Wölfel 1999).
Only shortly after the massive introduction of stone arch bridges by the
Romans arch bridges were also constructed in China. In contrast to the
Romans, which without exception built strong and massive arch bridges,
slender arch bridges were designed very early in China. The first bridge of
this type was the bridge in Luoyang, probably constructed 282 A.D. Since
then, many arch bridges were built in China, even arch bridges with sev-
eral spans. At least one of these bridges, the Jewel Belt bridge in Suhou
(built in 800 A.D.) is still in use. Furthermore, the Anji Bridge in China
should be mentioned here. Based on several authors, this bridge was the first
segmental bridge worldwide, designed and constructed in 605–607 A.D. The
bridge reaches a span of 37 m (Brown 1994, Yi-Sheng 1978, Jurecka 1979,
Graf 2005, Ding 1993 and Ding and Yongu 2001). Also, the Marco-Polo
bridge in China, built in 1194, is a worldwide-known historical stone arch
bridge in China (Brown 1994, Yi-Sheng 1978, Ding 1993 and Ding and
Yongu 2001).
After the decline of the Roman Empire in the middle of the first millen-
nium, the road system of the Romans degraded. This degradation also in-
cluded the bridges. The economy experienced a strong depression (Table
1-3). This is a very impressive example of the relation between bridge con-
struction and economical and social boundary condition (Heinrich 1983).
Only in the 11th and 12th centuries did a radical change reach Europe.
This change was accompanied not only by new technologies in agriculture
but also by the development of free bourgeoisie. The changes yielded to an
improvement in economy, an improvement in supply of materials and
goods, and a growth in trade. The number of cities at that time grew
40 1 Introduction

enormously. For example, the number of cities in Germany increased from


about 100 at the beginning of the second millennium up to 3,000 until the
14th century (Heinrich 1983).
With the growth of cities and trade, the requirement and the possibility
of constructing stone arch bridges also returned. A list of early medieval
stone arch bridges is given in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4. List of medieval arch bridges in Europe (Velflík 1921, Heinrich 1983
and Mehlhorn and Hoshino 2007)
City Bridge construction time River
Toledo Approximately 900 Tagus
Würzburg Probably 1133–1146 Main
Regensburg 1135–1146 Danube
Prague 1158–1172 Moldavia
London 1176–1209 Thames
Avignon 1178–1188 Rhone
Dresden 1179–1260 Elbe

The origin of the bridge in Regensburg should be introduced further-


more. Regensburg was, at that time, one of the biggest cities in the German
Empire and, besides Cologne, the second biggest trading centre. Several
central Europe trade roads crossed in Regensburg. The relations to the
South were of major importance since Venice and Genoa were the com-
mercial and maritime super powers of the western Mediterranean Sea and
had possessed excellent relations with the eastern Mediterranean Sea too.
Because the German Empire at that time included major parts of Italy,
Germany, and some parts of France, Regensburg was located very cen-
trally. In contrast, Cologne was more important for trade with England
(Ludwig and Schmidtchen 1992).
However, besides the central location of Regensburg in the German
Empire, Regensburg had a difficult binding to the sea. Shipping at that
time was of major importance, since transport on roads was the most ex-
pensive method. The cost of customs, escorts, damages on vehicles, over-
night stay, and food for animals had to be provided. Transport on roads
was about five times more expensive than transporting the goods on rivers
and about ten times more expensive than transports on sea (Ganshof
1991).
Furthermore, not only the costs were important, but uncertainties about
the time schedules were also considerable. In spring and in fall, fords were
often impassable and traders had to wait weeks to pass the rivers. For ex-
ample, Wilhelm the Conqueror had to wait three weeks in 1069 to pass the
river Aire on his way to York (Harrison 2004). Sometimes major rivers
1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges 41

were even seen as invincible barriers, such as the Yangtze in China (Yi-Sheng
1978).
Therefore, Regensburg had to improve the attraction of road transport.
So, when in the year 1135 an unusual drought yielded to a very low river
level, the construction of the stone arch bridge was launched. The bridge
design was mainly based on historical Roman templates. However, in con-
trast to the original Roman bridges, the foundations were different, since
Roman concrete was forgotten in medieval ages. Therefore, the piers had
to be protected against water in a different way: islands were constructed
around the piers. The arches had a span between 10.4 and 16.7 m, but the is-
lands yielded to a greater constriction of water flow between the piers.
It has been assumed by historians that the experiences from the con-
struction of the Regensburg arch bridge spread in Europe. For example, for
the construction of the bridges in Prague and Dresden, knowledge from
Regensburg was probably used. Furthermore, in many different cities
bridge construction schools may have evolved after such important and
successful constructions. For example in France, the friars of bridge con-
struction were led by Saint Bénézet, the designer of the arch bridge in
Avignon. Although the existence of such an order could never be proven,
the construction of the arch bridge in Avignon was a milestone in the art of
bridge construction. The bridge consisted not only of an incredible span of
33 m, but also on a very slender vertex. In direct comparison to the arch
bridge in Regensburg, the arch bridge from Avignon looks much more
slender and graceful, although the bridge was constructed only 40 years
later. This excellent expression is also reached by the application of circu-
lar segments (Heinrich 1983, Brown 1994).
The application of circular segments actually became very popular
only in the Renaissance. Besides the success of the segmental arch, the
basket arch was applied more and more. Both yielded to more elegant
views, wider spans, and lower bridge access roads than using a half-
circular arch shape. A third shape, the ellipse shape, also became widely
known, especially due to Dürers publication about the construction of el-
lipses. However, the ellipse could not assert itself and the basket arch was
much more successful (Heinrich 1983).
During the 14th and 15th centuries, the basket arch and circular arch
segments were widely used. For example, in Italy during that time, many
famous bridges were constructed, such as the Ponte Vecchio in Florence.
This bridge constructed in 1341–1345 reached a span of 32 m by a ratio of
pier width to a span of only 1:6.5 (Heinrich 1983, Brown 1994). Only 200
years later, Ammanati designed another famous bridge in Florence: the
Ponte Santa Trinità. The three-span bridge built from 1567 to 1569 reaches
spans of 32 m. The shape of the arch also follows a basket arch, but the
major clue of the bridge is the ratio of the pier width to the span of 1:7.
42 1 Introduction

The bridge was so slender that the public could not believe the sufficient
load-bearing behaviour of the bridge for some time. As a final example for
the Italian bridge design art at that time, the Rialto Bridge in Venice, de-
signed by Da Ponte and constructed in 1588–1591, is mentioned. The
bridge has only a span of 28 m but the foundation of the bridge is extraor-
dinary: about 12,000 wooden piles were used (Heinrich 1983, Brown
1994).
Only with the butcher bridge in Nuremberg, built in 1597–1602, could
the German bridge designers reach the quality of the Italian bridge con-
structors again. The bridge reached a span of 34 m but shows many paral-
lels to the Rialto bridge in Venice and was probably therefore strongly in-
fluenced by Italian bridge designers.
About 150 years later, under the French bridge designer Perronet, the
construction of stone arch bridges reached its perfection. Perronet designed
the bridge in Neuilly and the Concorde Bridge in Paris. The bridge in
Neuilly built in 1768–1774 was a landmark in arch bridge design. The
bridge consisted of five arches with a maximum span of nearly 38 m. The
piers were extremely slender and had a width of only 4.2 m. This gives a
ratio of span-to-pier width of 1:9.23.
The development of such excellent bridges did not come from any-
where. Just like the Romans, the central organized French state at that time
had recognized the importance of a good road and bridge system. To pro-
vide that in 1716, a Corps des Ingéniurs des Ponts et Chaussée was
founded. In 1747 in Paris, the school “Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées” was
founded and Perronet was the head of this school for more than 47 years.
Besides his teaching, he strongly improved the arch bridge design as ex-
amples have shown. He discovered that the arch piers, need to take vertical
loads only or vertical loads and very limited horizontal loads if the adja-
cent arches are constructed at the same time. This would permit very slen-
der piers, as constructed at the bridge in Neuilly. Furthermore, he heavily
used slender basket arches and thus eliminated the bridge access road
(Heinrich 1983, Brown 1994, Jesberg 1996).
Figure 1-38 summarizes the development of arch bridges over time.
However, the last shapes already show the rise of new construction materi-
als: steel and reinforced concrete.
1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges 43

Fig. 1-38. Development of massive bridge shapes over time

Harrison (2004) also gives a summary about the historical development


of arch bridges. He investigated the development of bridges over certain
rivers in England from around 1540 to the middle of the 19th century (Ta-
bles 1-5 and 1-6). He furthermore tried to distinguish between arch bridges
and other bridges. In contrast to the aforementioned authors, Harrison as-
sumes that the first stone bridges in England were already there at the end
of the 11th century. That would be around 50 years before the bridge in
Regensburg. However, Harrison also mentions the problems in the defini-
tion of stone bridges. For example, stone bridges could have also been
bridges with stone piers and wooden superstructures or with stone para-
pets. According to Harrison, the oldest (arch) bridge built in Oxford was
ordered by Robert D’Oilliy at the end of the 11th century. A second stone
bridge was built in Winchester and is perhaps even older. The estimation
of the age and the construction type of the later bridge are, however, very
uncertain. Around 1086 there should have been several stone bridges in
England. At around 1100 the number of stone bridges increased and also
the historical indications became more trustworthy (Harrison 2004).
44 1 Introduction

Besides England, Harrison (2004) also states that stone bridges were
built at that time in France. He assumes such bridges over the Loire in
Blois and Tours before 1100. Further stone arch bridges were built in
Saumur in 1162, in Orleans in 1176 and in Beaugency in 1160–1182
(Harrison 2004).
In general, stone arch bridges were very common in Great Britain be-
tween the late Middle Ages and the end of the 19th century. In the 16th
century, stone arch bridges were the major part of the bridge stock. Some
examples illustrate that: the old Exe Bridge in Exeter, which was found by
excavations during 1960 and 1970, was probably built in the 12th century.
The Framwellgate Bridge was built around 1400. The span of the bridge
was exceeded only in the middle of the 19th century. A last example is the
Warkworth Bridge erected around 1380 with a span of 20 m. Ruddock
(1979) gives a good summary and description about constructions of arch
bridges in Great Britain and Ireland in the 18th century. Therefore, the list
of successful arch bridges in these countries could be further extended.
Many of the historical arch bridges perform very well even today. And al-
though age, increasing traffic, floods and storms attacking the bridges, still
today the major cause of destruction of historical arch bridges is an insuf-
ficient road width of the bridges (Harrison 2004).

Table 1-5. Development of the number of bridges over English rivers over time
(Harrison 2004)
River 1540 1765–75 1850
Avon (downstream from the Finford Bridge) 17 18 20
Great Ouse (from Claydon Brook to Ely) 17 24 36
Severn (from Montford Bridge) 10 10 16
Thames (from Lechlade) 17 23 36
Trent (from Stoke-on-Trent) 16 23 30
Ure und Ouse (from Bain Bridge) 10 12 16
Avon (Bristol) (downstream from Malmsbury) 13 18 21
Avon (Hants.) (from Salisbury) 7 10 11
Medway (from Ton Bridge) 8 10 12
Stour (Dorset) (from Blandford) 6 7 7
Tame (Staffs.) (from Water Orton) 6 9 9
Wear (from Stanhope) 9 12 15
1.7 History of Stone Arch Bridges 45

Table 1-6. Construction material of bridges in England during 1540 (Harrison


2004)
River Number Number Number Building
of of stone of material
bridges bridges wooden unknown
bridges
Avon (downstream from the Finford Bridge) 17 13 3 1
Great Ouse (from Claydon Brook to Ely) 17 8 2 7
Severn (from Montford Bridge) 10 9 1 0
Thames (from Lechlade) 17 7 9 1
Trent (from Stoke-on-Trent) 16 5 1 10
Ure und Ouse (from Bain Bridge) 10 6 2 2
Avon (Bristol) (downstream from 13 9 0 4
Malmsbury)
Avon (Hants.) (from Salisbury) 7 6 0 1
Medway (from Ton Bridge) 8 7 0 1
Stour (Dorset) (from Blandford) 6 6 0 5
Tame (Staffs.) (from Water Orton) 6 4 0 2
Wear (from Stanhope) 9 6 0 3

The oldest historical arch bridges in the state of Saxony, Germany origi-
nate from the 13th century, such as the Elster Bridge in Kürbitz and a bridge
in Plauen. The Hammer Bridge (1550–1576) and the Altväter Bridge
(around 1570) on the Mulde were constructed in the 16th century. The
state of Saxony experienced an economical boom period mainly due to the
silver mining at that time. The end of the silver mining and the 30 Years
War caused an economical decline and the end of the stone arch construc-
tion period. Only the inauguration of the Saxon elector and later Polish
king Friedrich August I. again yielded to an economical prosperity period
with further stone arch bridges. For example, in 1716–1719 in Grimma,
and in 1715–1717, the Pöppelmann Bridge and a bridge in Nossen over the
Mulde were constructed (Frenzel 2004).
During the origin of the Saxon railway net between 1846–1851, the
world’s biggest brick stone arch bridge, the Göltzschtal Bridge, was built.
Furthermore, the Syratal Bridge in Plauen, constructed in 1905 with a span
of 90 m, was a major landmark for stone arch bridges. It was (or still is)
the masonry stone arch bridge with the longest span worldwide (Frenzel
2004).
However, already at that time, the boundary conditions for bridge con-
struction changed increasingly. The Industrial Revolution during the 19th
century, with the introduction of new means of transport such as the rail-
way, yielded to an exponential growth of transported goods. This caused
completely new requirements for bridge constructions. Furthermore, the
scientific approach to solving engineering problems became more and
46 1 Introduction

more important. This can be clearly seen in the number of publications


dealing with bridge design (BMA 2008). For example, in 1809, Wiebeking
(1809) published material about a planned bridge. In 1847, Ardant, profes-
sor for construction art in Metz, published a book about the construction of
bridges including material about arch bridges. He furthermore developed a
device to test arch bridge models for bending and shear. Kurrer and Kah-
low (1998) show the device from Ardant. Based on these results and Na-
viers’ theory, Ardant was able to compute the deformation of the arch at
the crown with
1 K ⋅V (1-2)
y= ⋅ ⋅ l ⋅ h2
2 E⋅I
with y as deformation at crown, l as span, h as rise, V as sum of vertical
loads, EI as bending stiffness, and K as factor for the consideration of the
load distribution over the arch.
Schubert (1847/1848), the designer of the Göltzschtal Bridge, published
his own vault theory in 1847 and 1848, and Scheffler published his vault
theory in 1857 (Scheffler 1857).
After the 1920s, scientists started investigating deformations of model
arch bridges in more detail. The major goal was the avoidance of the com-
plicated numerical computation of static indeterminated arches. The tests
included an arch model, a device for the application of the load and a mi-
croscope for the observation of the arch deformations. The devices were
called deformers. There were different deformers developed, for example
one by Beggs (1927), Bühler (1927), and Magnel and Schaechterle
(Mörsch 1947). In Mörsch (1947), an illustration of the deformer by
Schaechterle applied on a fixed arch is shown.
The last paragraphs gave the impression that statical computations ar-
rived only very late in arch bridge design. In contrast, Fleckner (2003) as-
sumes that already around the year 1200 simple static computations were
carried out for vaults and piers in France. He proves that sufficient knowl-
edge about mathematics and mechanics was provided at that time, espe-
cially in cloister schools. Fleckner (2003) further shows that independent
from the different shapes and designs, all piers in churches experienced
pressure under normal loading conditions. The avoidance of tensile stresses
inside the piers is, according to Fleckner, satisfactory proof of the men-
tioned computation at the former times.
However, advanced statical computations were used for arch bridges us-
ing other materials such as reinforced concrete or steel.
1.8 Arch Bridges from Alternative Material 47

1.8 Arch Bridges from Alternative Material

1.8.1 Steel Arch Bridges

The oldest historical cast iron arch bridge was constructed over the Severn
Coalbrookdale in England in 1779 (Martínez 2004, Schaechterle et al.
1956, Brown 1994). The bridge consisted of five parallel arches with a
span of 30.5 m. The designer was Thomas Pritchard. Twenty years later,
Telford designed a cast iron arch bridge with a span of 40 m. In 1796 in
Germany, the first iron road arch bridge was built over the Striegauer Wa-
ter in Silesia. In the first half of the 19th century, several further such
bridges were built in Germany and England. The maximum span until the
middle of the 19th century was reached with 72 m in England (Martínez
2004).
In the middle of the 19th century, the material changed from cast iron to
wrought iron, allowing much larger spans. In 1884, Gustav Eiffel designed
the Garabit Viaduct in France with a span of 165 m. However, the applica-
tion of wrought iron lasted a rather short time. Already since 1860, steel
had became more and more popular. The Mississippi Bridge in St. Louis,
built from 1867 to 1874, was probably the first large steel arch bridge
worldwide with a span of 158.5 m. The bridge is a three-span bridge and
was designed as combined road and railway bridge. The bridge is now
named after the designer Eads (Martínez 2004).
In Germany, the Wuppertal Bridge in Müngsten reached 160 m in 1893,
and the Rhine Bridge Engers-Neuwied reached 188 m in 1918
(Schaechterle et al. 1956).
Over the next decades, steel arch bridges experienced a major develop-
ment. Using bending stiff slabs, arch bridges spans of up to 250 m were
reached, with arch frameworks up to 500 m span possible. International
examples are the Mälarseer Bridge in Stockholm (1935) with a 204 m
span, the Henry Hudson Bridge in New York with a 244 m span, or the
Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia in 1930 with a 503 m span.
In 1977, the New Gorge River Bridge in Fayetteville was opened. The
bridge has the span of 518 m. The current record is owned by the Lunpu
arch bridge in Shanghai, China, with an incredible 550 m. The bridge was
opened in 2003. Furthermore, the latest developments are so-called net-
work arch bridges, which yield to extremely slender steel arch bridges
(Tveit 2007 and Graße and Tveit 2007).
48 1 Introduction

1.8.2 Wooden Arch Bridges

Due to the origin of wood, the application of curved structural elements


made of wood represents a problem. However, with the skilled connection
of single wood elements, wooden arch bridges become possible. One of
the first visualizations and indications of a wooden arch bridge can be
found at the Trajan pillar in Rome. The pillar was built in 110 A.D. and
shows a wooden arch bridge over the river Danube, which was probably
constructed during the Dacia wars (Steinbrecher 2006).
Leonardo da Vinci described a wooden arch bridge in the 15th century
(Ceraldi and Ermolli 2004). In 1540, Andrea Palladio described a wooden
arch bridge in Northern Italy (Fletcher and Snow 1976). In the 18th cen-
tury, several wooden arch bridges were constructed in England, such as the
Walton bridge over the river Thames (Ceraldi and Ermolli 2004). In the
18th century, also in France, the wooden arch Bridge Point de Choisy sur
la Seine was built (Fletcher and Snow 1976). Also in Germany, wooden
arch bridges were constructed (Holzer 2007).
Ivan Petrovic Kulibin designed a wooden arch bridge with a span of
300 m in the middle of the 18th century in Russia. The bridge was planned
for Saint Petersburg to span the river Neva. In December 1776, a loading
test on a model with scale 1:10 was carried out. Experts for evaluation of
the model were, for example, Leonhard Euler and Daniel Bernoulli. Unfor-
tunately, the bridge was never built (Bühler 2004).
In Japan, a historical wooden arch bridge has been considered as a most
important historical bridge: the Kinai-Kyo Bridge (Bühler 2004, Troyano
2003). Yang et al. (2007) describe the development of wooden arch
bridges in China.
The Colossus Bridge was the tallest wooden arch bridge ever built. It
was designed by Lewis Wernwag over the river Schuylkill at Fairmont in
Philadelphia in 1811. The bridge reached a span of 103.60 m. However, a
fire destroyed the bridge in 1838 (Bühler 2004, Troyano 2003 and Fletcher
and Snow 1976).
In Venice between 1933 and 1934, the wooden arch bridge Ponte dell’
Accademia was constructed as a temporary structure. However, the bridge
performed so well that the bridge remains functioning.
Modern wooden arch bridges show many advances compared to histori-
cal bridges. For example, parts of the structure are made of glued-
laminated timber and the roadway is made of concrete as shown at the
Crestawald bridge in Switzerland or the Wennerbridge in Austria (Bühler
2004). A last interesting example of a wooden arch bridge is the Leonardo
Bridge in Norway (Goldberg 2006).
1.8 Arch Bridges from Alternative Material 49

1.8.3 Concrete Arch Bridges

The first concrete bridge was constructed by Monier in 1875. However, it


was only a pedestrian bridge. Only 30 years later, in 1904, Hennebique de-
signed the Risorgimento Bridge in Rome with a span over 100 m (Martínez
2004). Until the end of the 19th century, concrete arch bridges were
mainly built with a Spangenberg’s boldness number up to 700. Spangen-
bergs number is computed by the span to the square divided by the rise.
The Risorgimento Bridge in Rome reached a Spangenberg’s number of
1,000, manifesting the change from the arch to the beam (Pauser 2002).
Maillard and Freyssinet further developed the reinforced concrete arch.
For example, Freyssinet constructed an arch bridge in Villeneuve-sur-Lot
with a span of 100 m in 1910. In 1925, he constructed an arch bridge in
Plougastel consisting of three arches with a span of 180 m each. At that
time, the formwork crystallized as problem.
From 1938 to 1942, the Sando Bridge (with a span of 264 m) was con-
structed. Until the finishing of the Arrabida Bridge in Porto, the Sando
Bridge remained the largest arch bridge worldwide. The Arrabida Bridge
was opened in 1963. The Arrabida arch reaches a span of 270 m. In the
same year, the Gladesville Bridge in Australia was opened with a span of
305 m. In 1979 in Croatia, the Krk arch bridge with a span of 390 m, was
finished. Currently, the largest concrete arch bridge is the Wanxian Bridge
over the river Jangtse in China, with a span of 420 m. In Germany in re-
cent years, the Kylltal Bridge was opened and, although it does not reach
the span of the Wanxian Bridge, the bridge is a good example of a concrete
arch bridge.
The tenders for the Millau Viaduct in France also included a reinforced
concrete arch bridge with a span of 600 m. Kamisakoda et al. (2004) have
also discussed concrete arch bridges with spans up to 600 m. Čandrlić
et al. (2004) have published numerical investigations for a reactive powder
concrete (RPC) arch bridge with a span of 1,000 m. Martínez (2004) sug-
gests an economical usage of concrete arch bridges with a maximum span
of 1,000 m and an normal span of 500 m.
Arch bridges built with modern construction materials such as steel and
concrete are still very competitive bridges. New materials or construction
technologies, such as concrete-filled steel tubular arch bridges, may even
increase the applicability of arch bridges and the competitiveness such as
recent examples in China show (Chen et al. 2004, Martínez 2004, Chen
2007).
50 1 Introduction

1.9 Number of Arch Bridges

Since the history of stone arch bridges is strongly related to the development
of new building materials, as stated before, the question arises how many
stone arch bridges still exist about 150 years after the massive implementa-
tion of new building materials such as reinforced concrete or steel.
In Germany, currently about 120,000 bridges exist (Prüfingenieur
2004). Current estimations assume a value of 80 billion Euro for all the
120,000 bridges in Germany. Weber (1999) has estimated the value of all
the German railway bridges with a span lower than 20 m with about 66 bil-
lion DM in 1993 prices. The reconstruction cost of the entire railway
bridge stock would probably exceed 26 billion Euro according to Marx
et al. (2006).
Although many of these bridges were constructed in recent decades,
stone arch bridges still contribute significantly to this bridge stock. In
some regions, they still represent the majority of bridges. For example, in
the region of the road department of Zwickau (Saxony, Germany), about
1/3 of all bridges are historical stone/concrete arch bridges that were con-
structed at the end of the 19th century (Bothe et al. 2004). The overall
number of road bridges in the German federal state of Saxony was esti-
mated at the beginning of 1990 as approximately 4,000 (Bartuschka 1995).
About 32% of this bridge stock was estimated as stone arch bridges (Bar-
tuschka 1995). Purtak (2004) assumes several thousand stone arch bridges
in Saxony.
Schmitt (2004) presumes that about 1/3 of all railway bridges with a
span between 10 and 20 m are historical stone arch bridges in Germany.
The German railway organization (DB AG) has estimated the overall
number of stone arch bridges in the German railway system at about
35,000. That would represent about 40% of all bridges and culverts, and
about 30% of bridges with a minimum span of 2 m (without the culverts)
(Orbán 2004).
According to Marx et al. (2006), the German railway currently uses
29,200 railway bridges, 860 road bridges, and another 1,300 bridges for
pipes, signal transfer, and other purposes. Most of the bridges have a span
less than 30 m (96%). They assume that historical arch and vault bridges
made up 28% of the entire bridge stock. About 25% of the bridges are roll-
ing steel beams in concrete, 24% are steel bridges, 18% are reinforced con-
crete bridges, and 4% are prestressed bridges. According to them, most
bridges were built between 1900 and 1920, and a second peak was between
1970 and 1995. The average bridge age is 70 years. This is only due to the
fact that since the reunification of Germany more than 270 new bridges have
been constructed. Before that, the average bridge age was 80 years old and
bridges with an age of 170 years are still in use (Marx et al. 2006).
1.9 Number of Arch Bridges 51

According to Weber (1999), stone or brick arch bridges competed with


wooden bridges until approximately 1860. After the introduction of weld-
ing steel and the construction of rolling steel beams in concrete, the num-
ber of new stone arch bridges dropped (Fig. 1-39). Only after World War
II, several arch bridges were rebuilt, however mainly from concrete. Since
then, the construction of new stone arch bridges rests (Weber 1999).

Fig. 1-39. Design-type railway bridges in Germany, according to Weber (1999),


excluding wooden bridge structures. Wooden railway bridges were not permitted
after 1865 based on the technical requirements of the association of German rail-
way administration. Wooden railway bridges were built until 1860 as permanent
structures with a span up to 40 m. In many other countries, wooden structures
made a significant part of the bridge stock (Weber 1999).

In Great Britain, the overall number of bridges has been estimated at


about 150,000 (Woodward et al. 1999). The number of stone arch bridges
in the British railway system ranges in certain publications between 20,000
(UIC 2005, Orbán 2004, Melbourne et al. 2004,) and 40,000 (Choo et al.
1991). Murray (2004) assumes an overall number of about 40,000 arch
bridges in Great Britain. Harvey et al. (2007) have estimated the overall
British railway bridge stock at about 70,000. Smith (2003) estimates
about 2,400 arch bridges, mainly brick and stone arch bridges owned and
52 1 Introduction

maintained by the British waterway administration. Woodward et al.


(1999) have estimated that from 13,000 bridges belonging to highway and
long-distance roads, about 0.7% are stone arch bridges.
Brencich and Colla (2002) estimate the number of stone arch bridges
with a span greater than 8 m, and constructed in the second part of the 19
century in the Italian railway system, as at least 7,000. Cavicchi and
Gambarotta (2004) number the quantity of masonry arch bridges in the
Italian railway with a span greater than 2 m at 12,000, whereas 80% of this
bridge stock has a span smaller than 5 m. Harvey et al. (2007) have esti-
mated the overall Italian railway bridge stock at about 180,000.
In 1985, Spain launched a systematic registration of the bridge stock of
the Spanish highway system. Until 1996, more than 8,000 bridges were re-
corded. About 2,824 of these bridges are masonry bridges, which repre-
sents about one third. However, especially for short spans, masonry bridges
show a much higher contribution: up to 70%. In contrast with wider spans,
the ratio of masonry bridges drops to less than 10% (Angeles Yáñez and
Alonso 1996).
In France, about 21,000 bridges belong to the highway and long-
distance roads system, and about 24% of them are masonry bridges. For
comparison purposes, the France railway system includes 100,000
bridges (Harvey et al. 2007). In Spain, masonry bridges represent about
8%, and in Slovenia about 6%, of the highway bridge stock (Woodward
et al. 1999). In Norway, masonry bridges make only a minor contribution
to the highway bridge stock of about 1.3% (Woodward et al. 1999). The
THC (2006) reports about stone arch bridges in Ireland.
Bién and Kamiński (2004) assume approximately 1,000 railway stone
arch bridges and about 2,000 road stone arch bridges in Poland. However,
they have counted only bridges with a minimum span of 3 m. If culverts
are included, then the overall number increases to more than 20,000.
Radomski (1996), in contrast, considers the contribution of masonry
bridges to the Polish road bridge stock as negligible and does not re-
cord it statistically.
Karaveziroglou-Weber et al. (1998) estimate the number of stone arch
bridges for central Greece as 300. Turer (2008) estimates the overall num-
ber of bridges in Turkey at about 5,000 and 100–200 are stone arch
bridges. Dogangün and Ural (2007) also describe certain Anatolian stone
arch bridges in some other regions of Turkey (Ural and Dogangün 2007).
The overall road bridge number in a Swiss Canton was given as 667 for
2,126 km of road distance. Masonry arch bridges make up 22%, and ma-
sonry-concrete arch bridges contribute 37% to the mentioned bridge stock
(Brühwiler 2008).
The United States probably has a total bridge stock of more than
600,000 bridges (Gaal 2004, Dunker 1993). However, masonry arch bridges
1.9 Number of Arch Bridges 53

contribute only a minor stock with less than 1,000 (Boothby and Roise
1995). Perhaps, because this low number increases the efforts to retain the
bridges, several descriptions and collections about stone arch bridges in the
United States can be found (SABM 2006, Evans 2006, Forbes 2006,
HBMW 2006). In Virginia, US, about 187 historical arch bridges built
from concrete and masonry are recorded (Miller et al. 2000). Senker (2007)
gives details about the number of stone arch bridges in Pennsylvania.
Generally, in the United States, good records about the bridges was intro-
duced after the collapse of the Silver Bridge at Pleasant Point, West Vir-
gina in 1967. The collapse yielded to the introduction of the Federal Highway
Act in 1968, which requires the recording and documentation of bridges.
However, as mentioned before, the number of arch bridges as part of the
highway system is extremely low. Even reinforced concrete arch bridges
contribute only minor to the bridge stock with about 0.2% (Gaal 2004,
Dunker 1993).
All types of arch bridges contribute according to unofficial statistics,
with 70% to the overall bridge stock of China (Dawen and Jinxiang 2004).
Ou and Chen (2007) describe stone arch bridges in a region of China. Even
in recent times, stone arch bridges have been constructed in China such as
the New Danhe Bridge that opened in 2000 (Chen 2007). The overall
number of road bridges in China is 533,618 for 3,457,000 km road (Yan
and Shao 2008). The first stone arch bridge in Korea was erected in 413,
the latest still existing stone arch bridge originates from the year 760
(Hong et al. 2008). Hong et al. (2007) describe certain properties of his-
torical Korean stone arch bridges.
The Indian railway has 119,724 bridges–of which 20,967 are arch
bridges according to Gupta (2008). Damage on Indian stone arch bridges is
also reported (Bridge 2006). Mathur et al. (2006) describe the assessment
and strengthening of arch bridges in the Indian railway system.
Shrestha and Chen (2007) mention stone arch bridges in Nepal. Exam-
ples of arch bridges in Russia, for example in Saint Petersburg, are given
in The Heritage Council (THC 2006). Seiler (2006) reports about masonry
railway bridges in Eritrea (Africa). Paredes et al. (2007) mention stone
arch bridges in Colombia, South America.
In general, it is difficult in all the statistics to figure out the meaning of
masonry bridges, arch bridges, and stone arch bridges, and so on. This, to a
certain extent, limits the comparability of all these numbers.
Therefore, a systematic analysis of the arch/vault bridge stock in the in-
ternational railway system was carried out by the International Union of
Railways. Thirteen railway organizations contributed and over 200,000
railway arch bridges were counted (UIC 2005). Harvey has estimated the
number of arch bridges in Europe even much higher. Based on the UIC
(2005) report, stone arch bridges contribute up to 60% of the bridge stock of
54 1 Introduction

the railway organizations joining the study. A more detailed summary of the
results of the investigation is shown in Table 1-7 and Figs. 1-40 and 1-41.
It is interesting to compare the data with a former study published by
Weber (1999). He also has investigated the amount of stone arch bridges in
the European railway stock. The results are summarized in Table 1-8.

Table 1-7. Number of stone arch bridges in different European railway organiza-
tions (UIC 2005)
Railway organization Number of Number of Ratio of stone Ratio of stone
stone arch stone arch arch bridges arch bridges
bridges and bridges on all bridges on all bridges
culverts and culverts without
culverts
French (SNCF) 78,0001 18,060 76.8 43.5
Italian (RFI) 56,888 94.5
British (NR) 17,867 16,5001 46.9
Portuguese (REFER) 11,746 874 89.8 39.6
German (DB) 35,0001 8,653 38.9 27.5
Spanish (RENFE) 3,144 49.3
Czech (CD) 4,858 2,391 18.9 35.8
1
Estimated number

Fig. 1-40. Proportion of arch bridges on the bridge stock of several European
railway organizations (UIC 2005)
1.9 Number of Arch Bridges 55

Fig. 1-41. Distribution of certain properties of the historical stone arch bridges in
the European railway bridge stock (UIC 2005)

Table 1-8. Number of stone arch bridges in different European railway organiza-
tions according to Weber (1999)
Railway organizationOverall Number Bridge Number Ratio in Oldest
railway of railway density2 of arch percent 3 arch
distance bridges1 bridges bridge
in km from
Belgium (SNCB/NMBS) 3,432 3,400 10 600 18 1845
British (BR) 16,528 26,240 16 13,000 50 1825
Bulgarian (BDŽ) 4,299 982 2 62 6 1867
Danish (DSB) 2,344 1,500 6 135 9 1853
German (DB) 4,087 32,017 8 9,146 29 1837
Finnish (VR) 5,874 1,905 3 60 3 1861
French (SNCF) 32,731 28,259 9 13,167 47 1840
Greek (CH, OSE) 2,484 21,000 8 710 34 1883
Italian (FS) 16,112 59,473 37 37,400 63 1850
Irish (CIE) 1,944 2,752 14 1,484 54 1839
Yugoslavian (JŽ) 2,770 619 22 1874
Luxemburg (CFL) 275 282 10 149 53 1859
56 1 Introduction

Dutch (NL) 2,753 2,790 10 50 2 1842


Norwegian (NSB) 4,027 2,700 7 311 12 1888
Austrian (ÖBB) 5,605 5,048 9 1,200 24 1838
Polish (PKP) 25,254 8,500 3 1,020 12 1842
Portuguese (CP) 3,054 1,928 6 883 46 1875
Rhaetian (RhB) 375 489 13 931 1888
Rumanian (CFR) 11,430 4,067 4 240 6 1859
Swedish (SJ) 9,846 3,500 4 100 3 1857
Swiss (SBB)* 2,985 5,267 18 914 17 1847
Spanish (RENFE) 13,041 6,371 5 3,205 50 1860
Czechoslovakia (ČSD) 13,100 9,411 7 3,213 34 1845
Hungarian (MAV) 7,605 2,375 3 278 12 1845
1
Crossed by trains
2
Number of bridges per 10 km railway distance
3
Ratio of arch bridges on the overall bridge stock
* The value of 1,000 arch bridges at the Swiss Railway is also mentioned by
Berset (2005)

All these numbers give the impression that stone and brick arch bridges
performed very well over the last decades and centuries, otherwise they
would not still contribute heavily to European and worldwide bridge stock.
According to Jackson (2004), arch bridges require the lowest maintenance
costs of all bridge types. The high maintenance costs currently are mainly
caused by the high age of the bridges. The low lifetime costs may be one
reason why new brick and stone arch bridges were constructed in Great
Britain recently (Wallsgrove 1995). A new stone arch bridge has also been
erected recently in Portugal (Arêde et al. 2007).
However, besides the maintenance costs and limitations of the historic
bridges in fulfilling modern serviceability, historic bridges also have to
bear heavily on the change in live loads over the last century and the last
few decades. Therefore, it is of great interest not only to understand the
modelling of live loads as discussed in detail in Chapter 2, but also how to
limit and control the live load.

References

Angeles Yáñez M & Alonso AJ (1996) The actual state of the bridge management
system in the state national highway network of Spain. Recent Advances in
Bridge Engineering. Evaluation, Management and Repair. Proceedings of the
US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized by the Technical
University of Catalonia and the Iowa State University, JR Casas, FW Klaiber
& AR Marí (Eds). Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for
Numerical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 99–114
References 57

Ardant P-J (1847) Theoretisch-praktische Abhandlung über Anordnung und


Construction der Sprengwerke von grosser Spannweite mit besonderer
Beziehung auf Dach- und Brücken-Constructionen aus geraden Theilen, aus
Bögen, oder aus der Verbindung beider; für praktische Baumeister, so wie für
Vorträge über Ingenieur-Mechanik; mit einem Atlas von 28 Tafeln und in den
Text gedruckten Holzschnitten. Auf Befehl des Französischen
Kriegsministeriums gedruckte Abhandlung. Deutsch hrsg. von Aug[ust] von
Kaven. Hannover (Hahn)
Arêde A, Costa P, Costa A, Costa C & Noites L (2007) Monitoring and testing of
a new stone arch bridge in Vila Fria, Portugal. Proceedings of the Arch 07 –
5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira &
V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 323–330
Bartuschka P (1995) Instandsetzungsmaßnahmen an hochwertiger Bausubstanz
von Gewölbebrücken. Diplomarbeit. Technische Universität Dresden, Institut
für Tragwerke und Baustoffe
Becqué RF (1983) De brug in Sociaal en historisch perspectief. In: Over Bruggen,
H de Jong (Ed), Delft University Press, The Netherland, pp 221–272
Beggs, GE (1927) Der Gebrauch von Modellen bei der Lösung von statisch
unbestimmten Systemen. Beton und Eisen, Heft 16, pp 300–304
Bennet D (1999) The Creation of Bridges – From Vision to Reality – The
Ultimate Challenge of Architecture, Design and Distance. Arum Press Ltd.,
London
Berset T (2005) Plastische Berechnung von Naturstein-Gewölbebrücken.
Kolloquium am Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktionen, ETH Zürich, 28.
Juni 2005
Bién J & Kamiński T (2004) Masonry Arch Bridges in Poland. Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca &
C Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 183–191
Birkhoff GD (1933) Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA
BMA (2008) Bibliotheca Mechanico-Architectonica. www.bma.arch.unige.it
Boothby TE & Roise CK (1995) An overview of masonry arch bridges in the
USA. Arch Bridges, C. Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton 1995, Thomas Telford, London, pp 11–18
Bothe E, Henning J, Curbach M, Bösche T & Proske D (2004) Nichtlineare
Berechnung alter Bogenbrücken auf der Grundlage neuer Vorschriften. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 99, Heft 4, pp 289–294
Brencich A & Colla C (2002) The influence of construction technology on the
mechanics of masonry railway bridges, Railway Engineering 2002, 5th
International Conference, 3–4 July 2002, London
Bridges (2006) http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/EQ_Reports/Bhuj/bridge1.htm
Brown DJ (1994) Brücken – Kühne Konstruktionen über Flüsse, Täler, Meere.
Callwey Verlag München
Brühwiler E (2008) Rational approach for the management of medium size bridge
stock. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and
Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 2642–2649
58 1 Introduction

Bühler A (1927) Zur Anwendung des Modellverfahrens von Professor Beggs.


Beton und Eisen, Heft 16, pp 304–306
Bühler D (2004) Brückenbau. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, München
Čandrlić V, Radić J & Gukov I (2004) Research of concrete arch bridges up to
1000 m span. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural
Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molings (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona,
pp 538–547
Cavicchi A & Gambarotta L (2004) Upper bound limit analysis of multispan
masonry bridges including arch-fill interaction. Arch Bridges IV – Advances
in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds),
Barcelona, pp 302–311
Ceraldi C & Ermolli ER (2004) Timber arch bridges: a design by Leonardo. Arch
Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction,
P Roca & C Molings (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 69–78
Chandler HW & Chandler CM (1995) The analysis of skew arches using shell
theory. Arch Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed)_, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton 1995, Thomas Telford,
London 1995, pp 195–204
Chen B (2007) An overview of concrete and CFST arch bridges in China. Arch’07
– 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges. Madeira, pp 29–44
Chen B (2008) Arch bridges. College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University
China, www.arch-bridges.cn
Chen B, Chen Y & Hikosaka H (2004) The application of concrete filled steel
tubular arch bridges and study on ultimate load-carrying capacity. Arch
Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction,
P Roca & C Molings (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 38–52
Choo BS & Gong NG (1995) Effect of skew on the strength of masonry arch
bridges. Arch Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton 1995, Thomas Telford, London 1995,
pp 205–214
Choo BS, Coutie MG & Gong NG (1991) Finite-element analysis of masonry arch
bridges using tapered elements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part 2, December 1991, pp 755–770
Corradi M (1998) Empirical methods for the construction of masonry arch bridges
in the 19th century. Arch Bridges: history, analysis, assessment, maintenance
and repair. Proceedings of the second international arch bridge conference,
A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6–9 October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 25–36
Czechowski A (2001) Structural Reliability Assurance – A Process Approach.
Safety, Risk, Reliability – Trends in Engineering, Malta
Dawen P & Jinxiang H (2004) Development, actuality and strengthening of
double curved arch bridges in China. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in
Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds.),
Seite 444–450
Diamantidis D (2001) Assessment of Existing Structures. Joint Committee of
Structural Safety JCSS, Rilem Publications S.A.R.L., The publishing
Company of Rilem
References 59

Ding D & Yongu L (2001) Erfolge des Bogenbrückenbaus in China. Bautechnik


78, pp 63–66
Ding D (1993) Antike und moderne chinesische Brücken. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 88, pp 289–296
Dogangün A & Ural A (2007) Characteristics of Anatolian stone arch bridges and
a case study for Malabadi Bridge. Proceedings of the Arch 07–5th
International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira &
V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 179–186
Drei A & Fontana A (2001) Load carrying capacity of multiple-leaf masonry
arches. Historical Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds), Guimarães,
2001, pp 547–555
Dunker KF (1993) Why America's bridges are crumbling, Scientific American,
266, No. 3, March, pp18–25
Ebeling W & Schweitzer F (2002) Zwischen Ordnung und Chaos. Komplexität
und Ästhetik aus physikalischer Sicht. In: Gegenworte, Zeitschrift für den
Disput über Wissen. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Heft “Wissenschaft und Kunst”, pp 46–49
Evans GR (2006) The Clements Stone Arch Bridge – A Preservation Challenge.
http://home.comcast.net/~g.k.evans/
Fanning PJ, Salomini VA & Sloan DT (2003) Nonlinear modelling of a multi-
span arch bridge under service load conditions. Extending the Life of Bridges,
Concrete and Composites Buildings, Masonry and Civil Structures, MC Forde
(Ed), The Commonwealth Institute, London, 1st–3rd July 2003
FAZ (2005) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Kartographie der Sehnsucht. 14th
August, Nr 32, p V 1
Fleckner S (2003) Gotische Kathedralen – Statische Berechnungen. Langfassung
eines Artikels im Bauingenieur 1/2003
Fletcher R & Snow JP (1976) A history of the development of wooden bridges.
Paper No. 1864, American Society of Civil Engineers, Transactions. ASCE
Historical Publications Nr. 4, New York
Forbes A (2006) Rehabilitation of the Keeseville Stone Arch Bridge,
http://www.dot.state.ny.us/design/css/files/2001r07.pdf
Frenzel M (2004) Untersuchung zur Quertragfähigkeit von Bogenbrücken aus
Natursteinmauerwerk. Diplomarbeit Technische Universität Dresden
Gaal GCM (2004) Prediction of Deterioration of Concrete Bridges. Dissertation,
TU Delft
Ganshof, FL (1991) Das Hochmittelalter. Propyläen Weltgeschichte, Band 5,
Propyläen Verlag, Berlin
Garbrecht G (1995) Meisterwerke antiker Hydrotechnik. Einblicke in die
Wissenschaft. B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft. Stuttgart
Gazzola P (1963) Ponti romani. Contributo ad un indice sistematico con studio
critico bibliografico, Ponti romani 2, Florence
Gilbert M & Melbourne C (1995) Analysis of multi-ring brickwork arch bridges.
Arch Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton 1995, Thomas Telford, London 1995,
pp 225–238
60 1 Introduction

Gilbert M (1998) On the analysis of multi-ring brickwork arch bridges. Arch


Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance And Repair.
Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli
(Ed), Venice 6.–9. October, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 109–118
Goldberg D (2006) Spanning the Globe – A user's guide to the new golden age of
bridges. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/bridge.html
Goyet J (2001) Basic Considerations on Risk-Based Inspection for Offshore
Structures. Safety, Risk, Reliability – Trends in Engineering, Malta
Graf B (2005) Bridges that Changed the World, Prestel Publishing, Munich
Graße W & Tveit P (2007) Netzwerkbogenbrücken – Geschichte, Tragverhalten
und ausgeführte Beispiele. 17. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 13. März
2007, Dresden, pp 183–198
Griefe NF (2006) Bridge Case Study: Forteviot Bridge over the River Earn.
http://www.trp.dundee.ac.uk/research/glossary/bridge.html
Gupta RK (2008) Judging suitability of arch bridges for higher axle loading by
load testing. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring
and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 468–475
Harrison D (2004) The Bridges in Medieval England – Transport and Society
1400–1800. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Harvey B (2006) Fun Arches
http//billharvey.typepad.com/photos/fun_arches/index.html
Harvey B, Ross K & Orban Z (2007) A simple, first filter assessment for arch
bridges. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch
Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007,
Madeira. pp 275–279
Haser H & Kaschner R (1994) Spezielle Probleme bei Brückenbauwerken in den
neuen Bundesländern. Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Verlag
für neue Wissenschaft, Bergisch Gladbach
HBMW (2006) Historic Bridges of the Midwest
http://bridges.midwestplaces.com/ar/pulaski/lakeshore/
Heinrich B (1983) Brücken – Vom Balken zum Bogen. Rowohlt Taschenbuch
Verlag GmbH, Hamburg
Hodgson J (1996) The Behaviour of Skewed Masonry Arch Bridges. PhD Thesis,
University of Salford, 1996
Holzer SM (2007) Der Bogen im Dach. Bautechnik 84, Heft 2, pp 130–146
Hong NK, Koh H-M & Hong SG (2008) Structural safety of historical stone arch
bridges in Korea. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health
Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 757–764
Hong NK, Koh HM, Hong SG, Bae BS & Yoon WK (2007) Characteristics of
historical arch bridges in Korea. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th
International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira & V
Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 187–192
Huges TG & Blackler MJ (1997) A review of the UK masonry arch assessment
methods. Proceedings of Institution Civil Engineering Structures and
Buildings, 122, August, pp 305–315
References 61

ICOMOS (2001) Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural


restoration of architectural heritage. International Scientific Committee for
Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage, Draft
Version No 11, September 2001
Jackson P (2004) Highways Agency BD on New Masonary Arch Bridges. 27th
February 2004. http://www.smart.salford.ac.uk/February_2004_Meeting.php
Janberg N (2008) International Database and Gallery of Structures. N Janberg
Internet content services, www.structurae.net
Jensen JS, Plos M, Casas JR, Cremona C, Karoumi R & Melbourne C (2008)
Guideline for load and resistance assessment of existing European railway
bridges. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and
Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 3658–3665
Jesberg P (1996) Die Geschichte der Ingenieurbaukunst. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt,
Stuttgart
Jurecka C (1979) Brücken – Historische Entwicklung, Faszination der Technik.
Verlag Anton Schrool & Co, Wien
Jurecka C (1979) Brücken. Historische Entwicklung, Faszination der Technik.
Verlag Anton Schroll Co., Wien, Wien-München
Kamisakoda K, Nakamura H & Nakamura A (2004) Studies on long-span
concrete arch bridge for construction at Ikarajima in Japan. Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C
Molings (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 548–558
Karaveziroglou-Weber M, Stavrakakis E & Karayianni E (1998) Damage of
existing stone bridges in Greece. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis,
Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the Second
International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October
1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 361–367
Klein W (2008) Ist Schönheit messbar? 12. Berliner Kolloquium der Gottlieb
Daimler- und Karl Benz Stiftung, 7. Mai 2008, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung,
Berlin
Koch W (1998) Baustilkunde – Das Standardwerk der europäischen Baukunst von
der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Band 1 und 2. Faktum Lexikon Institut –
Bassermann Verlag, Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, Gütersloh
Kurrer K-E & Kahlow A (1998) Arch and vault from 1800 to 1864. Arch Bridges:
History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the
Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9.
October, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 37–42
Kurrer K-E (2002) Geschichte der Baustatik. Ernst und Sohn Verlag für
Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH, Berlin
Leliavsky S (1982) Arches and short span bridges. Design Textbook in Civil
Engineering: Volume VII, Chapman and Hall, London
Leonhardt F (1982) Brücken. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Stuttgart
Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures, Structure
Engineering Material, 4, pp 301–319
Ludwig K-H & Schmidtchen V (1992) Metalle und Macht – 1000 bis 1600 –
Propyläen Technikgeschichte, Band 2, Propyläen Verlag Berlin
62 1 Introduction

Martínez SPF (2004) Arches: evolution and future trends. Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca &
C Molings (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 11–25
Mathur M, Kumar SV & Singh K (2006) Assessment and retrofitting of arch
bridges
Mehlhorn G & Hoshino M (2007) Handbuch Brücken, Entwerfen, Konstruieren,
Berechnen, Bauen und Erhalten, G Mehlhorn (Ed), Springer, Heidelberg,
Berlin
Melbourne C & Tao H (1995) The behaviour of open spandrel masonry arch
bridges. Arch Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton, Thomas Telford, London, pp 239–244
Melbourne C & Tao H (1998) The behaviour of open spandrel brickwork arch
bridges. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and
Repair. Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference,
A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 263–269
Melbourne C & Tao H (2004) The behaviour of open spandrel masonry arch
bridges. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and
Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), Barcelona, pp 125–133
Melbourne C (1998) The collapse behaviour of a multi-span skewed brickwork
arch bridge. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and
Repair. Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference,
A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 289–294
Melbourne C, Tomor AK & Wang J (2004) Cyclic load capacity and endurance
limit of multi-ring masonry arches. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in
Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds),
CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 375–384
Miller AB, Clark KM & Grimes MC (2000) Final Report: A Survey of Masonry
and Concrete Arch Bridges in Virginia, Virginia Department of Transportation
Molins C & Roca P (1998) Load capacity of multi-arch masonry bridges. Arch
Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance And Repair.
Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli
(Ed), Venice 6.–9. October, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 213–222
Mori Y & Kato T (2003) Practical method of reliability-based condition
assessment of existing structures. Applications of Statistics and Probability in
Civil Engineering, Der Kiureghian, Madanat & Pestana (Eds), Millpress,
Rotterdam, pp 613–620
Mori Y & Nonaka M (2001) LRFD for assessment of deteriorating existing
structures, Structure Safety, 23, pp 297–313
Mörsch E (1947) Die Statik der Gewölbe und Rahmen, Teil B, Verlag Konrad
Wittwer Stuttgart
Mörsch E (1999) Gewölbte Brücken. Betonkalender 2000, Part 2, Verlag Ernst
und Sohn, Berlin, pp 1–53
Murray M (2004) CIRIA Research Project RP692 Masonry and Brick Arch
Bridges. Condition appraisal and remedial treatment.
http://www.smart.salford.ac.uk/February_2004_Meeting.php
NN (2005) Minzhu Bridge:
http://bridge.tongji.edu.cn/chinabridge/arch/133-2.HTM
References 63

O’Connor C (1994) Roman Bridges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge


Orbán Z (2004) Assessment, reliability and maintenance of masonry arch railway
bridges in Europe. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural
Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), Barcelona 2004,
pp 152–161
Ou Z & Chen B (2007) Stone arch bridges in Fujian, China. Proceedings of the
Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço,
D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 267–274
Paredes JA, Galindo JA & Mora DF (2007) Brick arch bridges in the high cauca
region of Colombia (1718–1919). Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th
International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira &
V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira. pp 193–202
Pauser A (2002) Massivbrücken ganzheitlich betrachtet. Geschichte – Konstruktionen
– Herstellung – Gestaltung. Österreichische Zementindustrie. Wien
Pauser A (2003) Konstruktions- und Gestaltungskonzepte im Brückenbau.
Betonkalender 2004, Part 1, Ernst und Sohn Verlag für Architektur und
technische Wissenschaften, Berlin, pp 27–96
Petersen C (1990) Statik und Stabilität der Baukonstruktionen. ´2., durchgesehene
Auflage, Vieweg Verlag
Petryna Y (2004) Schädigung, Versagen und Zuverlässigkeit von Tragwerken des
Konstruktiven Ingenieurbaus. Habilitationsschrift, Ruhr Universität Bochum –
Bauingenieurwesen, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Konstruktiven
Ingenieurbau, Heft 2–2004, Shaker Verlag
Piecha A (1999) Die Begründbarkeit ästhetischer Werturteile. Fachbereich:
Kultur- u. Geowissenschaften, Universität Osnabrück, Dissertation
Prüfingenieur (2004) Der Prüfingenieur, April 2004, Nachrichten, p 7
Purtak F (2004) Zur nichtlineare Berechnung von Bogenbrücken aus
Natursteinmauerwerk. 22. CAD-FEM Users Meeting 2004 – International
Congress on FEM Technology with ANSYS CFX & ICEM CFD Conference,
10.–12. November 2004, Dresden
Radomski W (1996) Application of external prestressing for strengthening of
bridge structures in Poland. Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering.
Evaluation, management and repair, JR Casas, FW Klaiber & AR Marí (Eds).
Proceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized
by the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa State University,
Barcelona, 15.–17. July 1996, International Center for Numerical Methods in
Engineering CIMNE, pp 597–612
REHABCON (2000) REHABCON IPS 2000–00063: Annex B: UK procedures
for bridge inspections, assessment and strengthening,
http://www.cbi.se/rehabcon/Annex_B.pdf, 2006
Rücker W, Hille F & Rohrmann R (2006) Guideline for the Assessment of
Existing Structures. SAMCO Final Report 2006
Ruddock T (1979) Arch Bridges and Their Builders 1735–1835. Cambridge
University Press
SABM (2006) The Stone Arch Bridge at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
http://voteview.com/stonearch.htm
Schaechterle K (1937) Fortschritte im Gewölbebrückenbau, Die Strasse, p 368
64 1 Introduction

Schaechterle K (1942) Ueber gewoelbte Eisenbahnbruecken aus Natur- und


Kunststeinmauerwerk, Die Bautechnik, p 145
Schaechterle K, Hammacher R, Brunkow W, Neuffer W & Seitz H (1956)
Brückenbau. Hütte - Des Ingenieurs Taschenbruch – Bautechnik. 28. Auflage.
Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Scheffler H (1857) Theorie der Gewölbe, Futtermauern und eisernen Brücken
sowol zum wissenschaftlichen Studium, als ganz besonders für den
praktischen Gebrauch der Ingenieure. Braunschweig, Schulbuchhandlung
Schlaich J (2003) Brücken: Entwurf und Konstruktion. Betonkalender 2004, Teil
1, Ernst und Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften,
Berlin, pp 1–26
Schmitt V (2004) Eisenbahnbrücken kleiner und mittlerer Stützweite im
Stahlverbund. 14. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium. 9. März, pp 115–121
Schneider J (1996) Sicherheit und Zuverlässigkeit im Bauwesen – Grundwissen
für Ingenieure. Vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich und B.G. Teubner,
Stuttgart
Schubert JA (1847/1848) Theorie der Construction steinerner Bogenbrücken.
Theil 1: Dresden/Leipzig (Arnold) 1847; Theil 2: Dresden/Leipzig (Arnold)
1848; Figurentafeln: Dresden/Leipzig (Arnold) 1848
Schueremans L, Van Rickstall F, Ignoul S, Brosens K, Van Balen K & Van
Gemert D (2003) Continuous Assessment of Historic Structures – A State of
the Art of applied Research and Practice in Belgium. KULeuven, Department
of Civil Engineering
Seiler B (2006) Eritrea: Mit Mallets durchs Gebirge.
http://www.farrail.com/seiten/touren/eritrea-2006.html
Senker JH (2007) Pennsylvania stone arch bridges: evaluation and assessment.
Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges,
PB Lourenço, D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira,
pp 257–265
Shrestha KM & Chen B (2007) An overview on “Arch bridges in Nepal”.
Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges,
PB Lourenço, D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira,
pp 331–339
SIA 269 (2007) Grundlage der Erhaltung von Tragwerken. Draft Swiss code,
March 2007
Smith F (2003) The Reconstruction of brick arch bridges on the Chesterfield
canal. Structural faults + repair 2003. Abstracts of the tenth International
Conference of “Extending the life of bridges Concrete + Composites
Buildings, Masonry + Civil Structures”. The Commonwealth Institute,
London, p 65
Staudek T (1999) On Birkhoff’s Aesthetic Measure of Vases. Faculty of
Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Steinbrecher D (2006) Geschichte des Holzbaus am Beispiel des
Holzbrückenbaues in Amerika und Europa. BTU Cottbus.
http://www.tu-cottbus.de/Stahlbau/lehre/holzbau
Straub H (1992) Die Geschichte der Bauingenieurkunst. Ein Überblick von der
Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel
References 65

Streb J (2003) Problemorientierte Einführung in die Volkswirtschaftslehre.


Vorlesungsbegleiter Teil III: Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Wintersemester 2003/04
THC (2006) The Heritage Council: Bridge Strengthening Procedures, Artificial
Roosts and Roost Construction Within Bridges: Bridge Strengthening
Procedures, Ireland, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/bats/ch6.html
Troyano LF (2003) Bridge Engineering – A Global Perspective. Thomas Telford
Turer A (2008) The need, challenges, and opportunities for research and
application of bridge health monitoring, a Turkish experience. Bridge
Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh
& DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 3063–3068
Tveit P (2007) Visit to the Steinkjer network arch 44 years later. Proceedings of
the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço,
D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 305–314
UIC (2005) International Union of Railways: Improving Assessment,
Optimization of Maintenance and Development of Database for Masonry
Arch Bridges, http://orisoft.pmmf.hu/masonry/
Ural A & Dogangün (2007) Arch bridges in East Black sea region of Turkey and
effects of infill material on a sample bridge. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th
International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, D Oliveira &
V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 543–550
Van der Vlist AA, Bakker MM, Heijnen WJ, Roelofs HJJ & Oosterhoff J (1998)
Bruggen in Nederland 1800–1940. Bruggen van beton, steen en hout.
Nedelandse Bruggen Stichting – Uitgeverij Matrijs
Velflík AV (1921) About four medieval stone bridges in Bohemia founded in
1169–1357. Technický obzor 18, pp 91–96
Vockrodt HJ (2005) Instandsetzung historischer Bogenbrücken im Spannungsfeld
von Denkmalschutz und modernen infrastrukturellen Anforderungen. 15.
Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 15. März 2005, Dresden, pp 221–241
Vockrodt HJ, Feistel D & Stubbe J (2003) Handbuch Instandsetzung von
Massivbrücken. Untersuchungsmethoden und Instandsetzungsverfahren.
Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag
von Hänsel-Hohenhausen M (2005) Vom Antlitz in der Welt. Nachwort im Buch:
Meine Lieder werden leben, Pohl, I. Frankfurter Verlagsgruppe, Frankfurt/M.
von Wölfel W (1999) Kanäle, Brücken und Zisternen - Berichte aus den antiken
Kulturen Ägyptens, Mesopotamiens, Südwestarabiens, Persiens und Chinas,
Bautechnik Spezial, Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Wallsgrove J (1995) The Aesthetics of Load bearing Masonry Arch Bridges. Arch
Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Arch Bridges, Bolton 1995, Thomas Telford, London, pp 3–9
Weber WK (1999) Die gewölbte Eisenbahnbrücke mit einer Öffnung.
Begriffserklärungen, analytische Fassung der Umrisslinien und ein erweitertes
Hybridverfahren zur Berechnung der oberen Schranke ihrer Grenztragfähigkeit,
validiert durch einen Großversuch. Dissertation, Lehrstuhl für Massivbau der
Technischen Universität München
Wiebeking C-F (1809) Beyträge zur Brückenbaukunde, worin auch die neue
Bauconstruction wohlfeiler und dauerhafter Bogenbrücken, nach welcher
mehrere große Brücken vom Verfasser angegeben und ausgeführt sind,
66 1 Introduction

dargestellt ist; welche als eine Fortsetzung des Perronet'schen Werkes


betrachtet werden können. München, Selbstverlag
Woodward RJ, Kaschner R, Cremona C & Cullington D (1999) Review of current
procedures for assessing load carrying capacity – Status C, BRIME PL97-2220.
January 1999
Yan BF & Shao XD (2008) Application of China bridge management system in
Qinyuan city. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring
and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 2675–2682
Yang Y, Chen B & Gao J (2007) Timber arch bridges in China. Proceedings of the
Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço,
D Oliveira & V Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 171–178
Yeomans D (2006) The safety of historic structures. The Structural Engineer, 21st
March, pp 18–22
Yi-Sheng M (1978) Bridges in China, old and new. From the Ancient Chaochow
Bridge to the Modern Nanking Bridge over the Yangtze. Foreign Languages
Press, Peking
Žnidarič A & Moses F (1997) Structural safety of existing road bridges. 7th
International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR 97),
Kyoto, pp 1843–1850
Zucker P (1921) Die Brücke – Typologie und Geschichte ihrer künstlerischen
Gestaltung. Ernst Wasmuth a. G., Berlin
2 Loads

2.1 Introduction

As mentioned in the first chapter, bridges are designed to enable the trans-
port of goods over the shortest distance compared to the original geo-
graphical shape. Therefore, the bridge structure is exposed to certain loads,
not only the loads passing over the bridge, but also other types of loading
that are related to the inherent properties of bridges. Such loads include
temperature caused by changing weather conditions, the sun or snow, wind
loads, or simply the dead load of the bridge.
Historical arch bridges, in contrast to newly constructed bridges, require
further considerations of loading. For example, a historical bridge may be
unable to bear a modern traffic load, but the road can be weight restricted
to enable its continued use. In this chapter, loads are mainly considered in
reference to the viewpoint of historical arch bridges.

2.2 Road Traffic Loads

In the 1880s, Benz, Daimler, and Maybach more or less developed the pet-
rol driven car in parallel. This invention is the basis for the most modern
used road vehicle. However, that does not mean that only heavy trucks
have been used since this time. On the 11th of July 1893, the “Blue Won-
der Bridge” was opened in the German city of Dresden. The bridge was
first tested by many street car wagons loaded with rocks and anchors, in-
cluding several road rollers powered by steam engines, a street sprayer
pulled by horses, and one military company.
Neglecting earlier road traffic, the introduction of the petrol driven cars
can be seen as the beginning of an extremely successful growth of traffic
in many countries worldwide. This development, as shown in Figs. 2-1 and
2-2, began in Germany approximately 100 years ago with a marginal num-
ber of motorcars, by the 1950s already more than 2.5 million cars used in
Germany and nowadays about 44 million cars are reported (KBR 2001). The

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_2,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
68 2 Loads

maximum load for cars amounts to 44 tonnes. Lorries with higher loads are
permitted by special agreement. The number of allowances for such heavy
cars has increased in the last few years in Germany exponentially (Naumann
2002). On highways in Germany and Austria, lorries currently travel with a
weight of up to 100 tonnes (Hannawald et al. 2003, Pircher et al. 2009).

Fig. 2-1. Development of the number of motorcars in Germany mainly based on


KBA (2001)

Fig. 2-2. Development of different means of transport


2.2 Road Traffic Loads 69

During the planning and design of road bridges, the engineer has to
forecast road traffic for decades to come. To simplify this task, different
traffic load models are included in codes of practice. Load models attempt
to model traffic loads on bridges on the one hand precisely, and on the
other hand, with a limited amount of work for the engineer. Good models
fulfill both of these requirements at the same time. The last requirement is
often questioned especially when Eurocode 1 traffic load models with
many different load combinations are considered. Independent from this
criticism, the intensive scientific work behind the models is appreciated.
Here only the exemplarily works by Merzenich and Sedlacek (1995) are
mentioned.
The road traffic model of the German DIN-reports 101 is heavily based
on the Eurocode 1 model, especially ENV 1991-3. This road traffic model
is valid for bridges with a maximum overall span and a maximum width of
42 m. A dynamic load factor is already considered in the characteristic
loads, if necessary. In contrast to the ENV 1991-3, the German DIN-report
101 considers only three road traffic load models: load model 1 with twin
axle and uniform distributed loads, load model 2 with a single axle for
short structural elements, and load model 4 to describe a human scrum. A
further load model in the ENV 1991-3 that considers special lorries has not
been considered in the German DIN-report 101.
Table 2-1 gives characteristic traffic load values for load model 1 and
Table 2-2 shows the distribution of the loads on a roadway according to
the DIN-report 101 and the historical DIN 1072.

Table 2-1. Characteristic loads for load model 1 according to the DIN-report 101
Load position Twin axle Uniform distributed load
Axle load Reduction factor qik Reduction factor
Qik × αQk
Qik in kN α Qk in kN/m2 αqk
Lane 1 300 0.8 240 9.0 1.0
Lane 2 200 0.8 160 2.5 1.0
Lane 3 100 0.0 0 2.5 1.0
Further lands 0 - 0 2.5 1.0
Remaining area 0 - 0 2.5 1.0
70 2 Loads

Table 2-2. Characteristic loads for load model 1 according to the DIN-report 101
and DIN 1072
DIN-report 101 DIN 1072
Characteristic loads for load model 1 in Characteristic loads for load model 1 in
the area of the twin axle the area of the SLW (Heavy Load
Vehicle)

Characteristic loads for load model 1 Characteristic loads for load model 1
outside the area of the twin axle outside the area of the SLW (Heavy
Load Vehicle)

Geometry of twin axle Geometry of SLW (Heavy Load


Vehicle)
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 71

The road traffic model of the DIN 1072 includes two bridge standard
classes: the bridge class 60/30, which is used for new motorways, high-
ways, city roads (most roads); and the bridge class 30/30, which is used for
secondary roads. The bridge class 60/30 includes a main lane, a secondary
lane, and remaining areas, as does the load model 1. The main lane is ex-
2
posed to a uniformly distributed load of 5 kN/m and six single loads of the
SLW 60 (Heavy Load Vehicle). Furthermore, in the DIN 1072, the loads
are dependant on the span and the coverage increases by a dynamic load
factor. The secondary lane is exposed to a uniformly distributed load of
2
3 kN/m and six single axes of the SLW 30. No dynamic load factor is ap-
plied to the secondary lane and to the remaining areas. Also, the remaining
2
areas are exposed to a uniformly distributed load of 3 kN/m . In contrast to
the Eurocode or DIN-report 101 load model, the uniformly distributed
loads continue in the area of the SLW. Table 2-2 shows the load patterns
according to the DIN-report 101 and the DIN 1072.
Besides the two standard bridge classes, the DIN 1072 has introduced
bridge classes (BK 16/16, BK 12/12, BK 9/9, BK 6/6, BK 3/3) for check-
ing or recalibration (Table 2-3). Further historical load models for standard
20 and 8 tonnes lorries can be found in Leliavsky (1982).

Table 2-3. Characteristic loads for recalibration classes of DIN 1072


Bridge class 16/16 12/12 9/9 6/6 3/3
Overall load in kN for the lorry 160.00 120.00 90.00 60.00 30.00
Front wheels Wheel load in kN 30.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00
Contact width in m 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.14
Back wheels Wheel load in kN 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
Contact width in m 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.20
Single axle Wheel load in kN 110.00 110.00 90.00 60.00 30.00
Contact width in m 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.26 0.20
Uniform distributed load p1 in kN/m2 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00
Uniform distributed load p2 in kN/m2 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
72 2 Loads

The DIN 1072 offers a wide range of different characteristic road traffic
loads and is therefore permitted a fine gradation for the usage of historical
bridges. This gradation cannot be found either in the Eurocode or in the
German DIN-report 101. If the codes of practice no longer offer special
load patterns for weight-restricted historical bridges, it would be helpful to
develop different characteristic road traffic loads for such weight-restricted
historical bridges.
There are many different theoretical scientific works about road traffic
models that can be used as a basis for such a development. Some works in
the German-speaking area were carried out by König and Gerhardt (1985),
Spaethe (1977), Schütz (1991), Krämer and Pohl (1984), Pohl (1993),
Puche and Gerhardt (1986), Bogath (1997), Bogath and Bergmeister (1999),
Ablinger (1996), Crespo-Minguillón and Casas (1997), and O’Connor and
O’Brien (2005).
Besides the Eurocode load model, different road models are used in
other countries, for example the HA-KEL and HB load model in Great
Britain, the HB-17 load model in the United States, or the load models T
44 and L 44 in Australia. The great diversity of load models is partially
caused by the high number of influencing parameters for traffic load pre-
diction models.
The development of traffic load models is, of course, strongly related to
the essential properties of road traffic. Road traffic is and will be (for an
indeterminate time) the most important means of traffic: it offers high
speed, high usability by the masses, and all uses omnipresent. On roads,
every non rail-tied vehicle can reach every road-realized goal at all times,
and the number of road-developed goals is immense compared to all other
means of traffic. This advantage of roads causes major drawbacks for the
road traffic models, since the numbers of influencing parameters is extre-
mely high. To develop models that can be used by engineers under prac-
tical conditions, the number of input parameters has to be strongly restricted.
Table 2-4 shows some load-influencing factors classified in four groups.

Table 2-4. Load-influencing factors for the estimation of the characteristic road
traffic loads according to Schütz (1991)
Traffic intensity Traffic flow Vehicle group Single vehicle
Average daily traffic in- Vehicle distance Frequency of Number of axles
tensity Lane distribution single vehicle Axle load
Average daily heavy Velocity types Axle distance
traffic intensity Vibration properties
Maximum hourly traffic
intensity
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 73

Additional to the traffic parameters, further parameters describing the


structural conditions have to be considered. Such parameters are the static
system of a bridge or the quality of the roadway. Such a quality of the
roadway can be considered in terms of local, regular, and irregular bumpi-
ness. A classification of the quality of the roadway in terms of the road
class is given in Table 2-5. A more detailed work about the road roughness
can be found in Bogsjö (2007).

Table 2-5. Roadway quality based on road classes (Merzenich and Sedlacek 1995)
Road class Roadway quality
Highway Excellent
Federal highway Good until very good
State road Good
Country road Average

After the identification of significant input parameters, realistic values


for these parameters have to be found. These values are usually identified
by traffic measurement. However, although many measurement stations on
highways exist, the number on country roads associated with historical
arch bridges is rather limited. In Germany in 1991, about 300 measurement
stations were placed on highways and federal highways, but only 15 meas-
urement stations could be found on country roads (Loos 2005).
Also, on the European level, the major amount of traffic measurements
are carried out on highways, especially regarding the development of the
international European traffic load model, which focuses heavily on high
lorry traffic density measurements of long-distance traffic. Based on these
measurements, classes of lorries were identified. Merzenich and Sedlacek
(1995) have proposed four different lorry classes (Table 2-6).

Table 2-6. Suggestion for lorry classes according to Merzenich and Sedlacek (1995)
Class Description of lorry Representative lorry
Class 1 Lorry with two axes Two-axle vehicle

Class 2 Lorry with more than Three-axle vehicle


two axes
Class 3 Semi-trailer track Two axle track with
three axle semi-
trailer
Class 4 Tractive units Three-axle vehicle
with two axle with
trailer
74 2 Loads

Within the classes, a bimodal random distribution of the vehicle masses


is observed as shown in Fig. 2-3 (Geißler 1995, Quan 2004). This distribu-
tion consists of a distribution for the weights of both the unloaded and the
loaded lorries. Pohl (1993), for example, has considered in his model the
distributions of the weight of the lorry without load and the distribution of
the load itself, whereas other authors have considered axle loads as ran-
domly distributed variables (Fig. 2-4). An overview of these different
models can be found in Geißler (1995).

Fig. 2-3. General bimodal random distribution of the overall vehicle weight
(Geißler 1995, Quan 2004)

Fig. 2-4. General bimodal random distribution of the axle load (Geißler 1995)

Based on the limitation of the current Eurocode or DIN-report, which


neglects models for weight-restricted bridges, an extension of the Euro-
code road traffic model is recommended. However, the general procedure
outlined in the Eurocode for the development of traffic models will be
used. The goal of the following research is the development of α-factors
that can be applied to the Eurocode traffic model 1 to permit the re-
computation of load-restricted bridges.
To develop such a model, as previously suggested, requires measure-
ment data. Such traffic measurements were carried out on the Dresden
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 75

weight-restricted (15 tonnes) Blue Wonder Bridge (Fig. 2-5). Software was
used to process the axle weight measurement, including identification of ve-
hicle types. Such identification is mainly based on axle distances, and also
on the correlation between axle loads, as suggested by Cooper (2002). Re-
sults of the measurements of heavy weight vehicles are shown in Fig. 2-6.

Fig. 2-5. Blue Wonder Bridge in Dresden. Although the bridge is not a historical
arch bridge, it is a historical weight-restricted bridge and therefore it is assumed
that the traffic properties are comparable to historical arch bridges
76 2 Loads

Fig. 2-6. Relative frequency of measured overall vehicle weight and adjusted
multimodal normal distribution of heavy weight vehicles in October 2001 at the
Blue Wonder Bridge in Dresden

The factors that will be developed should deliver traffic models that are
comparable to the recalibration classes of the DIN 1072. The number in-
side the class gives the weight restriction for the lane, such as bridge class
30/30, 16/16 and 12/12.
Besides the input data obtained from measurement, a Monte Carlo
simulation is required. The input for the simulation is the decomposition
of the heavy vehicle-measured data classified into four lorry types (stan-
dard lorry or truck, truck with trailer, semi-trailer, and busses). Seeing
that the measurement data from the Blue Wonder does not include all
relevant information, further data were taken from Merzenich and Sed-
lacek (1995). The approximation of the axle load distribution was done
by bimodal distribution.
In general, the α-factors will be determined in the following steps:
1. Simulation of the vehicle type based on the traffic contribution of the
Blue Wonder Bridge data.
2. Simulation of the overall vehicle weight based on the available Blue
Wonder Bridge data on vehicle weights.
3. Simulation of the axle load contributions to the overall vehicle weight
based on the work by Merzenich and Sedlacek (1995).
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 77

4. Computation of the axle loads based on the overall vehicle weight and
the axle-load contribution.
5. Simulation of the axle distances based on Merzenich and Sedlacek
(1995).
6. Computation of the maximum bending moment for a single-span beam.
There are some simplifications involved in the simulation process. For
example, five-axle vehicles are simplified so that the fifth axle has the
same weight as the fourth axle. Also, the decisive load pattern was identi-
fied by iteration. The simulation itself was repeated 5,000 times for one
length of a single-span beam. Of course, the length of the single-span
beam was varied. For the maximum bending moment of a single-span
beam with a certain length, the simulation yielded to a frequency distribu-
tion. A log-normal distribution has been applied parallel to the approxima-
tion of the frequency data by a normal distribution. The characteristic traf-
fic load value is assumed as a value with a 1,000-year return period of this
distribution (Merzenich and Sedlacek 1995).
After the computation of the maximum bending moment by the simula-
tion process, the α-factor was computed by the required adaptation of the
standard traffic model 1 according to the Eurocode 1 and the DIN-report
101. The standard traffic model 1, including the α-factor, should give com-
parable results in terms of moments as the simulated computation.
Together with flowing traffic conditions, traffic jam conditions must
also be considered. Traffic jam conditions are mainly relevant for long-
span conditions and have to be considered in the computation of the
factors.
The described procedure was applied for the bridge class 16/16. How-
ever, for the bridge classes 12/12 and 30/30, the procedure had to be slightly
changed, since measurements were only based on the bridge class 16/16.
For the bridge class 12/12, the mean value of the measurement data
from the Blue Wonder Bridge was multiplied with 12/16 = 0.75. The stan-
dard deviation and the contribution of the different vehicle types to the
traffic were kept constant. For the adaptation of the bridge class 30/30, this
procedure was again extended. Based on measurements from the Blue
Wonder and Auxerre-traffic (Fig. 2-7), a new overall traffic weight distri-
bution was constructed by changing mean values, standard deviation, and
contribution of different vehicle types to the traffic from the Blue
Wonder Bridge traffic (Fig. 2-8). The simulation was then repeated.
To prove the suggested approach, the α-factor of 1.0 for unified traffic
load in the traffic model 1 in the Eurocode was verified for the Auxerre-
traffic (Fig. 2-9). For the axle load, a value of 0.9 was found. However,
this slight difference can be interpreted as an additional safety element.
The computed α-factors are summarized in Table 2-7.
78 2 Loads

Table 2-7. Reduction factor α for different bridge classes for the new
Bridge class Roadway Lane 1 Lane 2
quality
αQ1 αq1 αQ2 αq2
3/3* Average 0.1 0.22
6/6* Average 0.2 0.24
9/9* Average 0.25 0.26
12/12 Good 0.30 0.28 0.20 1.00
Average 0.30 0.30 0.25 1.00
16/16 Good 0.35 0.30 0.35 1.00
Average 0.35 0.40 0.45 1.00
30/30 Good 0.55 0.70 0.50 1.00
Average 0.60 0.70 0.80 1.00
Simulation “Auxerre-traffic” Good 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00
Load model 1 DIN-report 101 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00
*First drafts

Fig. 2-7. Comparison of overall vehicle weights measured at the Blue Wonder
Bridge in Dresden and at the Auxerre-traffic in France. The latter was mainly used
for the development of the Eurocode traffic model 1
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 79

Fig. 2-8. Development of a synthetic traffic distribution for the bridge class 30/30
based on measurements from the Blue Wonder in Dresden and from the Auxerre-
traffic in France based on Loos (2005)

Fig. 2-9. Maximum bending moments caused by characteristic traffic loads, in-
cluding dynamic load factor according to Loos (2005)
80 2 Loads

To provide further control of the suggested factors, the results have also
been compared with the road traffic model by Pohl (1993). Pohl distin-
guishes between long-distance, average-distance and short-distance traffic.
Long-distance traffic represents more or less heavy vehicle traffic on
German highways. Average-distance traffic can be found on federal high-
ways and on country roads, and short-distance traffic can be found on
weight-restricted routes. Therefore, the simulation procedure using the
model of Pohl is slightly different than the simulation procedure explained
above. Furthermore, in our simulation, the short-distance traffic is sepa-
rated into two types (types 1 to 4 or types 1 and 2 according to Table 2-6).
Figure 2-9 shows the characteristic maximum bending moment of a
single-span beam for different spans and different load models. It permits
a direct comparison of the load model by Pohl, the Eurocode model, and
the suggested variation of the Eurocode model.
The factors given in Table 2-7 depend on the roadway quality. Usually
this property is not given in codes, however here it is assumed that for
country roads lower roadway quality can be found that has significant im-
pacts on the chosen α-factor due to the dynamic properties. Here, the
model from Merzenich and Sedlacek (1995) has been applied. In general,
the different roadway qualities do not have such a strong effect on the
main lane, however the second lane is influenced more by this property.
It should be stated here that the factors found are a much more appropri-
ate method for the recomputation of historical bridges than the sometimes
found simple diminishing factors of the Eurocode load model 1 of 0.9, 0.8,
0.7 and so on, as has been suggested in Vockrodt (2005). Applying these
factors of 0.9, 0.8 or 0.7 to the Eurocode model 1 violates general assump-
tions in the statistical properties of model 1.
Further adaptations of the Eurocode model 1 are known, or different
models have been proposed besides the presented schematic. Such an addi-
tional adaptation has been presented by Novák et al. (2007).
A different proposal for the consideration of local traffic conditions for
local traffic loads has been offered by Bailey and Hirt (1996). This method
shows the corresponding stochastic basis much stronger than the Eurocode
model 1. The adaptation of traffic load to local traffic according to Bailey
and Hirt (1996) considers
• Maximum overall lorry weights in qmax in kN/m
• Mean overall lorry weights μQ in kN/m
• Standard deviation of the overall lorry weights σQ in kN/m
• Traffic volume N
2.2 Road Traffic Loads 81

• Proportion of heavy truck traffic HV on traffic volume


• Proportion of the freely flowing traffic F on traffic volume
Based on these data, six coefficients are computed:
q (2-1)
c1 = max ⋅ 0, 2 + 0,8 (40 ≤ qmax in kN/m ≤ 80)
73

1 (2-2)
c2 = (6 ≤ μQ in kN/m ≤ 20)
μQ
⋅ 0,65 + 0,35
14,5

1 (2-3)
c3 = (2 ≤ σ Q in kN/m ≤ 8)
σQ
⋅ 0,6 + 0, 4
6,0

1 (2-4)
c4 = (0,1 ≤ HV ≤ 0, 4)
HV
⋅ 0,7 + 0,3
0, 25

1 (2-5)
c5 = (105 ≤ N ≤ 109 )
log( N ) ⋅ 0,08 + 0,33

F (2-6)
c6 = ⋅ 0, 2 + 0,8 (40 ≤ F ≤ 100)
94

The coefficients then permit the adaptation of the traffic load:


6 ⋅ c1 ⋅ c2 ⋅ c3 ⋅ c4 ⋅ c5 ⋅ c6 (2-7)
αQ =
( c1 + c2 + c3 + c4 + c5 + c6 )

The adaptation is then carried out as


Q (2-8)
Q= d
αQ

The example in Table 2-8 is taken from Bailey and Hirt (1996). The co-
efficients are then c1 = 0.99; c2 = 1.02; c3 = 1.0; c4 = 1.72; c5 = 1.09; c6 =
1.01, and finally αQ = 1.68.
82 2 Loads

Table 2-8. Computation example from Bailey and Hirt (1996)


Local traffic properties Value
Maximum overall weight of lorries in qmax in kN/m 70
Mean overall weight of lorries μQ in kN/m 14
Standard deviation of the overall weight of lorries σQ 6
(kN/m)
Traffic volume N 20 × 106 in 10 years
Proportion of heavy truck traffic HV on the traffic 0.05 rounded up to 0.1
Proportion of the freely flowing traffic F on the traffic 1% standing
volume 2% with 40 km/h
500 vehicles per hour

The major problem of this schematic is probably the capture of the data.
Many publications concerned with traffic loads can be found. Exemplary
publications are by Casas and Crespo-Minguillon (1996), Hannawald et al.
(2003), COST-345 (2004), and Allaix et al. (2007). Further traffic load
models can be found in COST-345 (2004), Vrouwenvelder and Waarts
(1993), and Prat (2001).

2.3 Railroad Traffic Load

The first railway was probably introduced by Richard Trevithick in 1804.


He simply put a steam engine on wheels. At first, railways were used for
goods traffic, but have also been used since 1829 for passenger traffic,
when Robert Stephenson won the race. In the following 100 years, rail-
roads experienced incredible growth (Table 2-9).

Table 2-9. Development of railroad length in Germany according to Mann (1991)


Year Railroad length in Germany in km
1840 549
1850 6044
1870 19575
1910 61148

This incredible growth yielded also to an enormous demand for bridge


construction. Therefore, between 1845 and 1890 especially, many railway
bridges were constructed as arch or vault bridges. Later, most superstruc-
tures were built from steel.
Because of the rapidly growing demand for railway passenger and
goods transport, locomotives were permanently improved. This improve-
ment was related to an increased overall weight. For example, from 1835
2.3 Railroad Traffic Load 83

to 1922, the weight of locomotives expanded from 10 to 175 tonnes. This


corresponds to an increase in uniform load from 2.5 to 13.67 tonnes per
metre (Beyer 2001). As an example, the growth of railway loads in Spain
is shown in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10. Growth of railway loads in Spain according to Vega (1996)


Year Uniform load in kg/m
1877 4,900
1902 6,230
1925 10,780
1956 13,400
1975 12,000

According to Weber (1999), in the beginning of railway technology in


Germany (1845–1876), the railway load design was a train with real axle
loads. A locomotive with an overall length of 7.0 m and wheel distances of
2.4 and 1.4 m was used. The wheel load was 5.0 and 4.5 tonnes, respec-
tively. The maximum speed was 40 km/h. Only in 1877, the Wurttemberg
railway company introduced a railway load pattern.
The use of the railway load pattern UIC 71 for new bridges was devel-
oped deterministically based on the sum of load patterns of real railway
loads concurrently in Germany and many other European countries. It was
introduced in 1971. The introduction of a new load pattern for railways
called IM 2000 has so far failed. In addition to the general railway loads
for heavy railways, the so-called, heavy load patterns SW/0 and SW/2 are
used. For consideration of local conditions, the UIC 71 can be adapted by
factor α. The factor can reach from 0.75 to 1.33 (see also Fig. 2-10). This
would permit an adaptation of the load for special conditions on historical
bridges.
If this adaptation is insufficient, then there exists a further opportunity
by using special static standard railway load models. These special railway
models are related to lower railway track classifications. Figure 2-11 in-
cludes examples of such lower classifications and the standard load pat-
terns. However, the application of such load patterns requires a strong col-
laboration with the railway company (in Germany the DB AG, O’Connor
et al. 2008).
84 2 Loads

Fig. 2-10. Observed moments on bridges in comparison with the assumed moments
based on the UIC loads (Lieberwirth 2004)

Fig. 2-11. Continued


2.3 Railroad Traffic Load 85

Fig. 2-11. Railway load patterns for the UIC 71 and the recomputation railway
patterns C3 and D4 according to the DB AG. Furthermore, the possible future load
patterns IM-2000 (Weber 1999) and the historical load pattern G1 are shown

Besides consideration about the weight of the locomotives, which was


mainly driven by the first steam locomotives, the heavy goods railway
transport has significantly changed. Locomotives are much stronger com-
pared to the old days, which yields not only to higher starting tensile forces
but also to heavier railway wagons. Nowadays, the axle loads of railway
wagons exceed the axle loads of locomotives and show much higher devia-
tions caused, for example, by overload or humidity of the bulk freights.
An international load border system for goods railway wagons gives the
maximum load class, up to which wagons on certain railway routes can be
loaded (Tables 2-11 and 2-12).

Table 2-11. Load border system for goods railway wagons (t = tonnes)
A/B1 B2/C2 C3/C4 D2 D3 D4
38.0 t 56.0 t 65.0 t 56.0 t 67.0 t 77.0 t
Maximum speed 120 km/h

Table 2-12. Interpretation of the load border system in Germany (DB AG)
Classification Wheel set load
Uniform vehicle load A B C D
in tonne/m 16 tonnes 18 tonnes 20 tonnes 22.5 tonnes
1 5.0 A B1
2 6.4 B2 C2 D2
3 7.2 C3 D3
4 8.0 C4 D4
86 2 Loads

The load border system influences the railway traffic on a certain route
in different ways—for example, the speed can be limited. This influences
the dynamic load factor and therefore decreases the load on structures on
this route. Additionally, railway goods trains can only be loaded to a cer-
tain value. Usually, the wheel set load is declared on the goods wagon and
the wagons are only then loaded up to the permitted value corresponding
to the load border system.
Since the route classification often depends on the weakest link, which
is usually a bridge, it becomes clear that great interest from railway com-
panies exists to utilize all load-bearing capabilities of historical arch
bridges in order to reach an acceptable route class. If the historical arch
bridge remains an impairment for the route classification, then sooner or
later the bridge will be replaced. However, this problem provides an op-
portunity to apply modern concepts for both the load description and the
structural resistance description.
Background information about the European railway loads can be found
in some ERRI reports (1993, 1994a, 1994b and 1998), UIC-report 702
(1974), Tobias et al. (1996), or Lieberwirth (2004).

2.4 Initial Drive Forces

Initial drive forces from railway trains and road trucks can introduce high
main spin direction parallel horizontal forces. However, this depends on
the structural components of the arch superstructure. In Germany, single-
span arch bridges with sufficient coverage have rather low average span
distances, continuous rail initial drive forces, and breaking forces. This is
based on the Ril 805 (1999) and Ril 804 (2003) for the recomputation of
historical railway bridges.
Weber (1999) assumes that by using continuous rails, the initial drive
forces and the breaking forces are directly transferred to the connected
railway. Therefore, these forces are not transferred by the arch bridges and
are not measurable in the arch itself. A historical draft of the Eurocode 1,
Sect. 3.4, had assumed that initial drive forces and breaking forces do not
have to be considered for historical vault and arch bridges.
Ril 804 considers historical bridges by reducing the maximum initial
drive force of 1 MN by a factor ξ.
Fx = 33,3 ⋅ l ⋅ ξ (2-9)
2.5 Breaking Forces 87

The loading length is limited to 30 m. For single arches, this is ξ = 0.5.


For long arch lines, special considerations are required since the loading
length can easily exceed the above-mentioned length. Here, for example,
the type of construction of the arch and the piers has to be considered. It
should be noted that even when a lower load pattern than UIC 71 is used
for the estimation of vertical loads, the initial drive force must be consid-
ered. This is understandable if one considers that the strongest locomotives
in Germany are used in the train route class D4. Currently, the strongest
locomotive of the DB AG (Germany) is the modernized BR 241
(Worowschilowgrad). This locomotive is mainly used for heavy goods
trains and reaches a maximum pull force of 450 kN over 20.82 m.

2.5 Breaking Forces

The normative railway breaking force according to Ril 804 is evaluated


based on the same function as the initial drive force:
Fx = f x , Br ⋅ l ⋅ ξ in kN. (2-10)

For every track, fx,Br = 20 kN/m has to be used for passenger and good
trains. However, for heavy goods transport, an increased value of 35 kN/m
has to be applied since the heavier wagons can cause greater breaking
forces.
For tall and slender piers, a load combination of relatively low vertical
traffic load (low route class) with rather high initial drive or breaking
forces and side wind is often relevant for design. To fulfill the stability re-
quirements for long bridges, different pier types are often used: these are
called group piers, which are thicker than the normal piers and have the
function to transfer high horizontal forces to the foundations. The result is
that only one group pier has to take the horizontal forces between the
group piers. The coupling of the different bridge parts needs to then be
proven independently. For the coupling, the backfill concrete on the arches
is often considered. Post-applied precast concrete way elements are usually
not of considerable strength for the horizontal force transfer due to the
joints.
Breaking forces for road bridges were originally computed based on the
DIN 1072 (1985) and supplementary sheets. Values range from approxi-
mately 10 to 900 kN. Currently, the Eurocode 1 or the DIN-report is the
basis for the estimation of the breaking forces. Figure 2-12 shows breaking
force values subject to the bridge length and different vehicle types.
88 2 Loads

Fig. 2-12. Breaking forces on bridges subject to the bridge length and the type of
design vehicle according to Merzenich and Sedlacek (1995)

As with railway bridges, the computation of the flow of the breaking


forces into the foundation requires models that consider the stiffness of the
single piers. Further work on this topic can be found in Merzenich and
Sedlacek (1995), Pfohl (1983), and Weihermüller and Knöppler (1980).

2.6 Wind Loading

Arch bridges are exposed not only to horizontal forces parallel to the main
spin of the bridge but also to horizontal forces rectangular to the main spin
of the bridge. Such forces are impact forces or wind forces. Wind forces
indeed act on historical arch bridges, however in most cases the wind
forces are not relevant due to the high dead load of arch bridges. As men-
tioned before, sometimes wind forces have to be considered in combina-
tion with other horizontal forces, mainly for tall piers.
Codes of practice for wind forces on bridges are again the Ril 804 and
Ril 805 for railway bridges in Germany, and the DIN-report 101. It should
be mentioned that often wind forces with and without traffic on bridges
have to be considered separately.
There are many background documents about wind force evaluation in-
cluding Lieberwirth (2003).
2.9 Temperature Loading 89

2.7 Impact Forces

Horizontal impact forces rectangular to the main spin of bridges can be


caused by technical and natural means. Technical means are mainly differ-
ent means of transport, such as impacts from ships, cars, railways, or air-
planes and helicopters. Natural processes are mainly gravitational mass
movements such as avalanches, debris flows, flash floods, landslides, or
ice pressure.
Many historical bridges have been destroyed by flash floods or other
impacts. Such forces can easily reach several Mega Newton. Background
for the computation of impact forces by means of transport can be found in
Proske (2003), and for natural processes in Proske and Hübl (2007) and
Proske et al. (2008).

2.8 Settlements

The static integrity of the arch bridge is strongly related to the low de-
formation of the foundation and the abutment. This is the reason why
arch bridges are usually not built in regions with soft ground, such as
gravel or sand. Therefore, settlements of the foundation of arch bridges
can cause substantial damage to the bridge. However, for historical arch
bridges, settlements usually should not increase further and if the bridge
has survived a number of decades or centuries, settlement should no
longer be of concern.
The consequences of settlements are discussed, for example, in Jagfeld
(1998, 2000) and Ochsendorf (2002). Ochsendorf gives an all-inclusive
number for the decrease of the ultimate load-bearing behaviour of arch
bridges of 15%. Furthermore, settlements can change the location of the
hinges inside the arch and can therefore completely change the failure
mechanisms. Goldschneider (2003) discusses the combinations of ground
and historical foundations.

2.9 Temperature Loading

The consideration of temperature loading on historical arches is still dis-


puted due to a number of different opinions.
Based on the UIC-report, a temperature gradient over the vault cross
section has to be considered. The constant temperature change has to be
90 2 Loads

assumed with ± 15 K. A comparable method for arch bridges was used in a


former Eurocode draft.
For temperature loading, Pietsch (1961) recommends either a computa-
tion with consideration of the plasticity of masonry or an artificial decrease
of the stiffness E0 of the masonry, depending on the temperature change.
He proposes for the
daily temperature change, Et = 1,0 ⋅ E0 , (2-11)

average temperature change, E m = 0,5 ⋅ E0 , (2-12)

yearly temperature change, E j = 0, 2 ⋅ E0 . (2-13)

This yields to rather low internal forces inside the arch due to tempera-
ture loading. The factor of 0.2 fits very well with a publication by Thürmer
(1995). He calculated a loss of stress caused by temperature inside a his-
torical arch bridge by a nonlinear computation of 70% compared to the
linear-elastic computation. This would represent a factor of 0.3.
Bothe et al. (2004) presents the computation of a historical arch bridge.
He calculates that a linear-elastic computation without temperature loading
results in a maximum live load of 56 kN/m and consideration of tempera-
ture loading results in a 14 kN/m maximum live load. However, if a
nonlinear computation based on maximum strain and overall stability is
carried out, the maximum live load becomes independent from the tem-
perature loading. If a certain characteristic concrete strength is assumed for
the resistance, then the maximum live load without temperature loading is
102 kN/m, compared to 100 kN/m with temperature loading. Figure 2-13
shows the formulae for the computation of the characteristic concrete
strength, including further additional formulas. Besides the three nonlinear
computations with and without temperature, the linear-elastic computation
results are also included in the figure. The diagram shows clearly that the
consideration of temperature loadings on historical arch bridges does not
result in a significant decrease of the ultimate load-bearing capacity, if
nonlinear computations are carried out.
2.9 Temperature Loading 91

Nonlinear
computation

Fig. 2-13. Computation of maximum permitted live loads on a historical arch con-
sidering four load cases. First, a linear-elastic computation is carried out consider-
ing temperature and no temperature. Furthermore, three nonlinear computations
with and without temperature are shown. These computations differ in the as-
sumption of the concrete compression strength fc as shown. As we can see, α is the
long-term loading factor (0.85), fck is the characteristic concrete compression
strength, and γR is the partial safety factor (1.8)

This statement fits very well with the regulation of the historical DIN
1072 (1952), whereon masonry historical arch bridges with backfill, func-
tional arch without hinges, a maximum span of 20.0 m, and with a certain
pier ratio temperature loading had not to be considered.
In contrast to this, there are some known works where temperature loads
caused significant effects on historical arch bridges. Patzschke (1996) de-
scribes an example where temperatures in the summer of 1992 caused the
appearance of a three-hinge arch on a railway multi span brick arch bridge.
Since the development of hinges in the arch caused major deformations
and limited the use of this railway route, structural hinges were installed to
limit the deformations. Schlegel et al. (2003) also mention that temperature
caused major deformations on the Göltzschtal Bridge in Saxony.
Further investigations into the influence of temperature loadings on
spandrel walls and parapets are given by Robinson et al. (1998). They use
ABACUS to simulate climatic effects on arch bridges. The temperatures
considered range from 0° to 31°C. Measurements were also considered in
this study.
92 2 Loads

2.10 Snow Loading

Snow loads on bridges can usually be neglected. This is understandable


since no traffic can pass the bridge under high snow loads. However, the
traffic weight is usually much higher than the snow load and therefore
dominates design. Further information about snow load can be found in
Lieberwirth (2003), JCSS (2004), Soukhov (1998), and Mehlhorn (1997).

2.11 Dead Load

All loads discussed so far have been live loads. They change direction and
presence. However, the most important load on arch bridges is the dead
load or self-weight. In contrast to many other structures, the dead load only
allows the function of the arch. If the self-weight is missing, then the sta-
bility of the arch itself is not given.
Therefore, the correct computation of the dead load is of utmost impor-
tance. For these computations, the density and volume of certain structural
elements and materials are required. The volume is mainly computed on
historical or up-to-date documentation about the structure. Although the
computation of the volumes and weight is rather simple, one should care-
fully investigate documents or the structure about the assembly and the ge-
ometry. In some cases, drilling or other further investigation technologies
may be required to find cavities in the structure. Such cavities can be blast-
ing chambers or vaults inside the structure.
Once the geometry is known, either based on measurements or based on
codes of practice like the DIN 1055-1, the density of the material can be
chosen. As an example, for the bridge shown in Fig. 2-14, the following
densities were used:
3
Density Porphyr gP =28 kN/m (DIN 1055-1, 2002, Tabelle 6, Zeile 12),
3
Density Sandstone gS =27 kN/m (DIN 1055-1, 2002, Tabelle 6, Zeile 15),
3
Density Concrete gB =24 kN/m (DIN 1055-1, 2002, Tabelle 1, Zeile 21).
2.11 Dead Load 93

Fig. 2-14. Example geometry draft of a bridge (no internal volumes are shown)

If the densities cannot be taken from the codes, mean values of meas-
urement data can be taken. The mean value as characteristic values for
densities and volumes correspond with Eurocode 1, if the coefficient of
variation is less than 0.05. If the deviation is higher, then 95% fractile val-
ues can be chosen. However, this is rather unusual, since slight deviations
are covered by a partial safety factor of 0.95 and 1.05.
Although partial safety factors are discussed later in Chapter 7, some
remarks should be given here, since the dead load on arch bridges is a very
specific case. This is caused by the fact that the dead load is increasing the
ultimate load-bearing capacity of arches up to a certain value. Over a cer-
tain value, the dead load becomes like the live load, and decreases the ul-
timate load-bearing behaviour.
Whereas in the Ril 805 for the German railway bridges the partial safety
factor for the dead load is γG = 1.20, in the Eurocode 1 or in the German
DIN 1055-100, γG = 1.35. Works by Wiese et al. (2005) have shown that
this value is too high and considers not only uncertainties from the dead
load but also from the modelling. A former draft of the Eurocode gives
some special considerations to historical arch bridges:
• The partial safety factor for the self-weight of the arch can be decreased
to 1.1 for unfavourable effects and 1.0 for favourable effects. Herrbruch
et al. (2005) have suggested 1.35 and 0.9, respectively, according to the
current codes.
• The partial safety factor for the self-weight of further elements of the
superstructure (like coverings) can be chosen as 1.2 for unfavourable
and 0.9 for favourable effects.
94 2 Loads

References

Ablinger W (1996) Einwirkungen auf Brückentragwerke – Achslastmessungen


und stochastische Modelle, Diplomarbeit, Institut für konstruktiven
Ingenieurbau, Universität für Bodenkultur
Allaix DL, Vrouwenvelder ACWM & Courage, WMG (2007) Traffic load effects
in prestressed concrete bridges. 5th International Probabilistic Workshop,
L Taerwe & D Proske (Eds), Ghent, Belgium, pp 97–110
Bailey SF & Hirt AH (1996) Site specific models of traffic action effects for
bridge evaluation. Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering. Evaluation,
Management and Repair, JR Casas, FW Klaiber & AR Marí (Eds),
Proceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized
by the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa State University,
Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for Numerical Methods in
Engineering CIMNE, pp 405–425
Beyer P (2001) 150 Jahre Göltzschtal- und Elstertalbrücke im sächsischen
Vogtland 1851–2001. Vogtland Verlag Plauen
Bogath J & Bergmeister K (1999) Neues Lastmodell für Straßenbrücken.
Bauingenieur 6, pp 270–277
Bogath J (1997) Verkehrslastmodelle für Straßenbrücken. Dissertation, Institut für
konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Universität für Bodenkultur
Bogsjö K (2007) Evaluation of stochastic models of parallel road tracks.
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 22, No. 4, October 2007, pp 362–370
Bothe E, Henning J, Curbach M, Bösche T & Proske D (2004) Nichtlineare
Berechnung alter Bogenbrücken auf der Grundlage neuer Vorschriften. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 99, Heft 4, pp 289–294
Casas JR & Crespo-Minguillon C (1996) Serviceability and fatigue evaluation of
existing bridges. Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering. Evaluation,
Management and Repair, JR Casas, FW Klaiber & AR Marí (Eds), Pro-
ceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized by
the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa State University,
Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for Numerical Methods in
Engineering CIMNE, pp 441–464
Cooper D (2002) Traffic and moving loads on bridges. Dynamic Loading and
Design of Structures, AJ Kappos (Ed), Chapter 8, Spon Press, London,
pp 307–322
COST 345 (2004) European Commission Directorate General Transport and
Energy: Procedures Required for the Assessment of Highway Structures:
Numerical Techniques for Safety and Serviceability Assessment – Report of
Working Groups 4 and 5
Crespo-Minguillón C & Casas JR (1997) A comprehensive traffic load model for
bridge safety checking, Structural Safety, 19 (4), pp 339–359
DIN-report 101: Einwirkungen auf Brücken. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2001
ENV 1991-3 Eurocode 1: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung und Einwirkungen
auf Tragwerke, Teil 3: Verkehrslasten auf Brücken, 1995
ERRI-report (1993) D 192/RP 1: Theoretische Grundlagen zur Überprüfung des
bestehenden Lastbildes UIC 71, Utrecht
References 95

ERRI-report (1994a) D 192/RP 2: Vergleich der Einwirkungen des derzeitigen


und künftigen Schienenverkehrs auf den internationalen Strecken mit denen
aus Lastbild UIC 71 auf deterministischer Grundlage, Utrecht
ERRI-report (1994b) D 192/RP 3: Lastbild für die Berechnung der Tragwerke der
internationalen Strecken, Utrecht
ERRI-report (1998) D 221/RP 1: Vertikale Eisenbahnverkehrslasten:
Kombinationsbeiwerte – Hintergrundinformationen zum Thema
“Eisenbahnverkehrslasten”, Utrecht
Geißler K (1995) Beitrag zur probabilistischen Berechnung der Restnutzungsdauer
stählerner Brücken. Dissertation, Heft 2 der Schriftenreiche des Institutes für
Tragwerke und Baustoffe an der Technischen Universität Dresden
Goldschneider M (2003) Baugrund und historische Gründungen. Untersuchen,
Bewerten und Instandsetzen. Empfehlungen für die Praxis, Fritz Wenzel und
Joachim Kleinmanns (Hrsg) “Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer Bauwerke”.
Karlsruhe
Hannawald F, Reintjes K-H & Graße W (2003) Messwertgestützte Beurteilung
des Gebrauchsverhaltens einer Stahlverbund-Autobahnbrücke. Stahlbau 72
(7), pp 507–516
Herrbruch J, Groß JP & Wapenhans W (2005) Wirklichkeitsnähere
Tragwerksanalyse von Gewölbebrücken. Mauerwerk 9, Heft 3, pp 89–92
Jagfeld M (1998) Tragverhalten gemauerter Wölbkonstruktionen bei großen
Auflagerverschiebungen – Vergleich verschiedener FE Modelle. 16. CAD-
FEM User’s Meeting, 7.–9. Oktober 1998 in Bad Neuenahr
Jagfeld M (2000) Tragverhalten und statische Berechnung gemauerter Gewölbe
bei großen Auflagerverschiebungen – Untersuchungen mit der Finit-Element-
Methode. Schriftenreihe des Lehrstuhls für Hochbaustatik und
Tragwerksplanung, Technische Universität München, Aachen
JCSS (2004) Joint Committee of Structural Safety (2004). Probabilistic
Modelcode. www.jcss.ethz.ch
KBA (2001) Kraftfahrzeugbundesamt: Festschrift 50. Jahre Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt
1951–2001. August 2001
König G & Gerhardt HC (1985) Verkehrslastmodell für Straßenbrücken.
Bauingenieur 60, pp 405–409
Krämer W & Pohl S (1984) Der Ermüdungsnachweis in dem Standard TGL
13460/01. Ausgabe 1984 – Grundlagen und Erläuterungen. Die Straße 24,
Heft 9, pp 257–263
Leliavsky S (1982) Arches and short span bridges. Design Textbook in Civil
Engineering: Volume VII, Chapman and Hall, London
Lieberwirth P (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Wind- und Schneelastmodellierung. 1.
Dresdner Probabilistik-Symposium – Sicherheit und Risiko im Bauwesen,
D Proske (Ed), Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, pp 123–138
Lieberwirth P (2004) Ausgewählte Aspekte zur statistischen Beschreibung von
Bahnverkehrslasten. 2. Dresdner Probabilistik Symposium, Dresden
Loos S (2005) Entwicklung von Lastmodellen auf Grundlage des DIN-
Fachberichtes 101 für gewichtsbeschränkt beschilderte Straßenbrücken.
Diplomarbeit. Technische Universität Dresden, Institut für Massivbau
96 2 Loads

Mann G (1991) (Ed) Propyläen Weltgeschichte – Eine Universalgeschichte.


Achter Band. Propyläen Verlag Berlin – Frankfurt am Main
Mehlhorn G (1997) Der Ingenieurbau, Band 8 – Tragwerkszuverlässigkeit und
Einwirkungen, Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Merzenich G & Sedlacek G (1995) Hintergrundbericht zum Eurocode 1 – Teil 3.2:
Verkehrslasten auf Straßenbrücken. Forschung Straßenbau und Straßenver-
kehrstechnik. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Heft 711
Naumann (2002) Aktuelle Schwerpunkte im Brückenbau. 12. Dresdner
Brückenbausymposium. Lehrstuhl für Massivbau und Freunde des
Bauingenieurwesens e.V., pp 43–52
Novák B, Brosge B, Barthel K & Pfisterer W (2007) Anpassung des
Verkehrslastmodells des DIN FB-101 für kommunale Brücken, Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 102, Heft 5, pp 271–279
O’Connor A & O’Brien EJ (2005) Traffic load modelling and factors influencing
the accuracy of predicted extremes. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 32,
pp 270–278
O’Connor A, Pedersen C, Enevoldsen I, Gustavsson L & Hammarbäck J (2008)
Probability Based Assessment of a Large Riveted Truss Railway Bridge.
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and
Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 1812–1819
Ochsendorf JA (2002) Collapse of Masonry Structures. University of Cambridge,
Dissertation, Cambridge
Patzschke F (1996) Der Wahrener Viadukt in Leipzig – Rekonstruktion einer
Gewölbebrücke der DB AG. 6. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, Fakultät
Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 135–148
Pfohl H (1983) Reaktionskraft am Festpunkt von Brücken aus Bremslast und
Bewegungswiderständen der Lager. Bauingenieur 58, pp 453–457
Pietsch H (1961) Zur Frage der Beanspruchung aus Temperatur in massiven
Gewölbebrücken am Beispiel des voll eingespannten Bogens mit
Übermauerung. Dissertation Hochschule für Verkehrswesen, Dresden
Pircher M, Lechner B, Mariani O & Kammersberger A (2009) Schädigung einer
schlaff bewehrten Betonbrücke durch Verkehrsbelastung. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau, 104(3), pp 154–163
Pohl S (1993) Definition von charakteristischen Werten für Straßenverkehrsmodelle
auf der Basis der Fahrzeuge sowie Fraktilwerte der Lasten des Eurocode 1-
Modells; Forschungsbericht Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen
Prat M (2001) Traffic load models for bridge design: recent developments and
research. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 3, pp 326–334
Proske D & Hübl J (2007) Historical arch bridges under horizontal loads.
Proceedings of the 7th Arch Conference, Madeira
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung alter Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
Proske D, Kaitna R, Suda J & Hübl J (2008) Uncertainty in debris flow impact
force assessment. Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop,
CA Graubner, H Schmid & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt
References 97

Puche M & Gerhardt HC (1986) Absicherung eines Verkehrslastmodells durch


Messungen von Spannstahlspannungen. Bauingenieur 61, pp 79–81
Quan Q (2004) Modeling current traffic load, safety evaluation and SFE analysis
of four bridges in China. Risk Analysis IV, CA Brebbia (Ed) Wessex Institute
of Technology Press, Southampton
Ril 804 (2003) Eisenbahnbrücken (und sonstige Ingenieurbauwerke) planen,
bauen und instand halten. Deutsche Bahn AG
Ril 805 (1999) Tragsicherheit bestehender Eisenbahnbrücken
Robinson JI, Prentice DJ & Ponniah D (1998) Thermal effects on a masonry arch
bridge investigated using ABAQUS. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis,
Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the Second
International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Balkema, Rotterdam
1998, pp 431–438
Schlegel R, Will J & Popp J (2003) Neue Wege zur realistischen
Standsicherheitsbewertung gemauerter Brückenviadukte und Gewölbe unter
Berücksichtigung der Normung mit ANSYS. 21. CAD-FEM User’s Meeting
2003, Potsdam
Schütz KG (1991) Verkehrslasten für die Bemessung von Straßenbrücken,
Bauingenieur 66, pp 363–373
Soukhov D (1998) The Probability Distribution Function for Snow Load in
Germany. LACER No. 3, 1998, pp 263–274
Spaethe G (1977) Beanspruchungskollektive von Straßenbrücken, Die Straße 17,
Heft 4, pp 241–246
Thürmer E (1995) Verbreiterung einer Bogenreihenbrücke im Zuge der
Autobahn A4 bei Hainichen. 5. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, Fakultät
Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 37–54
Tobias DH, Foutch DA & Choros J (1996) Loading Spectra for railway bridges
under current operation conditions. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 1 (4),
pp 127–134
UIC-report 702 (1974) Lastbild für die Berechnung der Tragwerke der
internationalen Strecken, Internationaler Eisenbahnverband UIC
Vega T (1996) Bridge management at RENFE. Recent Advances in Bridge
Engineering. Evaluation, Management and Repair, JR Casas, FW Klaiber &
AR Marí (Eds), Proceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge
Engineering, organized by the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa
State University, Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for
Numerical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 115–123
Vockrodt H-J (2005) Instandsetzung historischer Bogenbrücken im Spannungsfeld
von Denkmalschutz und modernen historischen Anforderungen. 15. Dresdner
Brückenbausymposium, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 221–241
Vrouwenvelder ACWM & Waarts PH (1993) Traffic loads on bridges. Structural
Engineering International, 3, pp 169–177
Weber WK (1999) Die gewölbte Eisenbahnbrücke mit einer Öffnung.
Begriffserklärungen, analytische Fassung der Umrisslinien und ein
erweitertes Hybridverfahren zur Berechnung der oberen Schranke ihrer
Grenztragfähigkeit, validiert durch einen Großversuch. Dissertation, Lehrstuhl
für Massivbau der Technischen Universität München
98 2 Loads

Weihermüller H & Knöppler K (1980) Lagerreibung beim Stabilitätsnachweis von


Brückenpfeilern, Bauingenieur, 55, pp 285–288
Wiese H, Curbach M, Al-Jamous A, Eckfeldt L & Proske D (2005) Vergleich des
ETV Beton und DIN 1045-1, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 100, pp 784–794
3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

“An arch bridge can bear everything, except a static computation.”

Unknown author (Weber 1999)

3.1 Introduction

The described loadings on bridges in the preceding chapter cause a certain


reaction of the arch bridge if applied to the bridge. This reaction is either
admissible or inadmissible. Inadmissible reactions of bridges include dam-
ages or failure of the bridge. To prevent such effects, the reaction of
bridges exposed to loads is usually studied in advance.
Such studies or structural analysis requires the development of an ap-
propriate numerical model.
These models usually reflect the knowledge of humans about the struc-
ture. This fact becomes especially visible for structure types with a long
history, such as arch bridges. Here, completely arbitrary models are mod-
els from Von Leibbrand (1897), Haase (1899), Gilbrin (1913), Fain
(1953), Wolf (1989), Lachmann (1990), and Falter (1998). Of course, this
chapter gives a much more detailed and structured list about certain types
of models. However, a simplified rule for choosing an appropriate model
cannot be given. Even very simple empirical rules have shown to be a sol-
id basis for bridges with ages of centuries and millenniums.
The choice of the model or model type depends on the respective ques-
tion and the provided resources. During the COST-345 (2004) report for
the EU commission, different description classes for structures and their
applications were discussed. Table 3-1 lists different levels of assessment.
This chapter starts with a discussion of simple empirical rules and ad-
vances to the latest numerical models in terms of finite element and dis-
crete element models. Many further recommendations about the different
levels of bridge assessment can be found in literature (Schueremans et al.
2003, Diamantidis 2001, Rücker et al. 2006, Enevoldsen 2008, Brühwiler

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_3,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
100 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

2008, O’Connor et al. 2008, Jensen et al. 2008, Ruiz et al. 2008, and SIA
269 2008).

Table 3-1. Analysis methods recommended for each level of assessment (COST-
345 2004)
Structure Subtype Description level
type
1 2 3 4 5
Empirical or two-dimensional-model,

FEM analysis of specific details of


Two- or three-dimensional, linear-

grillage or FEM (upstand model if

site- specific loading and material


Two- or three-dimensional, linear

considered in the previous levels


the structure being assessed not
structure interaction, cracking,
or nonlinear, elastic or plastic,
elastic or nonlinear, elastic or
plastic, allowing for cracking

necessary), allowing for soil-

Reliability analysis based on


linear-elastic arch frame

probabilistic models
Arch bridges

properties
Bridges

3.2 Empirical Rules

3.2.1 Historical Rules

In 1717, Gauter listed the following five tasks during the design process of
natural stone arch bridges (taken from Heyman 1998):
• Choice of the shape of the arch
• Choice of the arch thickness at the key
• Choice of the thickness of the foundation and abutment
• Choice of the thickness of the piers depending on the design of the arch
• Choice of the thickness of the wing walls
Over the building time of arch bridges with approximately 2000 the
design of arch bridges has been mainly carried out using empirical models.
Empirical methods are here understood as methods that describe the ul-
timate load-bearing behaviour of arch bridges based on simple geometrical
rules for the design of the arch elements. Such a simple rule is shown in
3.2 Empirical Rules 101

Fig. 3-1 based on suggestions by Alberti. Further borders of the load-


bearing behaviour of arch bridges are given by Corradi (1998) based al-
ready on some theoretical considerations (Table 3-2). Such empirical rules
were also introduced for the abutment, as the Blondel rule (Straub 1992)
proves. However, the foundations should not be of interest here. The major
interest here is the description of arches using empirical rules.

Fig. 3-1. Empirical rules for the design of arch bridges from Alberti around 1,450
(taken from Heinrich 1983)

Table 3-2. Types of failure for circular arches (Corradi and Filemio 2004)
Without backfill Declining backfill Horizontal backfill
Types of failure

Hinges
μ ≥ 0.395 μ ≥ 0.511 μ ≥ 0.258
K crit = 1.1136 Kcrit = 1.184 K crit = 1.044
α = 54° α = 50° α = 68°
102 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Without backfill Declining backfill Horizontal backfill


Hinges and sliding
0.309 ≤ μ < 0.395 0.406 ≤ μ < 0.511 0.236 ≤ μ < 0.258
1.2205 ≤ K crit < 1.1136 1.264 ≤ K crit < 1.184 1.1138 ≤ K crit < 1.044
29° ≤ α < 54° 20° ≤ α < 50° 44° ≤ α < 68°
Sliding
μ < 0.309 μ < 0.406 μ < 0.236
K crit = 1.2205 K crit = 1.264 K crit = 1.1138
α = 29° α = 20° α = 44°
R = Radius extrados, r = Radius intrados, µ = Coefficient of friction, α = Angle
collapse point, H = Normal force at crown, W = Self weight
R
K crit =
r

3.2.1.1 Rules for the shape of the arch

Major parameters for the description of the shape of the arch are the span l
and the rise f. They both form a ratio of f/l, which is heavily used for a first
characterisation of the arch shape. Purtak (2004) has published a statistic
about this ratio (Fig. 3-2).

Fig. 3-2. Ratio of arch rise f to arch span l related to the span l (Purtak 2004)
3.2 Empirical Rules 103

Furthermore, the ratio of the rise f to the span l can be used as

f f (3-1)
s= =
l 2⋅a
Full circular arches have an s of 1/2. For segmental arches, s reached
values between 1/6 and 1/9. Sometimes additionally a minimum angle of
60° at the springing was required that corresponded to an s of 1/7.5. At the
end of the 18th century, the basket arch became more and more popular.
At the Neuilly Bridge, Perronet used 11 circle segments to shape the arch.
However, often lower numbers of circles were used such as three, five, or
seven. Perronet’s Bridge reached s = 1/4. Also, for the latter, ellipses
s-values of 1/4 were used, or in general greater than 1/5 were used. How-
ever, in contrast to such rules, bridges with much lower s values were also
constructed, such as the Nemours Bridge by Perronet in 1792 with s = 1/10
or s = 1/15 (Souppes) (Corradi and Filemio 2004, Corradi 1998).
Additionally to the choice of the s value, the number of circle elements
in an arch was ruled for basket arches. For example, if the s was equal to
1/3 and the span of the arch was higher than 10 m, then three circular ele-
ments were suggested. Between 10 and 40 m span, five circular elements
were recommended, and for a span greater than 40 m, about seven seg-
ments should be chosen. For s = 1/4, the number of circular segments
should then be five, seven, and nine. For even greater s values, a circle
with a radius r of
l2 + 4 ⋅ f (3-2)
r=
8⋅ f
was suggested (Corradi and Filemio 2004).
However, the low number of circular segments in basket arches yielded
to an aesthetical problem of the transition of the different segments.
Therefore, later recommendations gave a higher number of segments.
Also, parallel to the basket arches as mentioned before, alternative shape
functions were chosen: Sejourne recommended ellipses and Viviani used a
cycloid for the arch shape of a bridge over the river Arzana. At two bridges
between Pistoia and Modena, a circular evolvente was used for the arch
shape. Additionally, during the medieval ages, often ogival designs with
parabolic functions were used. And in the 18th century, additional
catenaries were applied. For example, bridges in Boucicault, Orelans, and
Avignon used this function (Corradi and Filemio 2004, Corradi 1998).
Tolkmitt recommended the shape function subject to the loading. In
general, Tolkmitt chose the following function
104 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

n (3-3)
p = ∑ ak ⋅ z 2 k
k =0

with ak as constant and z as longitudinal axis. The shape should then fol-
low the function
d2y p (3-4)
2
=− .
dz H
The solution of this differential equation is as follows:
1 n ak (3-5)
y= ∑
H k =0 (2 ⋅ k + 1) ⋅ (2 ⋅ k + 2)
⋅ k 2⋅k + 2 .

Usually the series is interrupted after the second term. However,


Freyssinet has used n=4 for the Bernard Bridge over the Balbigny–Regny
railway line. Tables for the computation of the shape were among others
provided by Kögler (Corradi and Filemio 2004).
A further arch shape function is given with
1 (3-6)
y= log(cos( a ⋅ z )) .
a
Lebert’s parabolic functions were
y = k ⋅ log(cos( a ⋅ z )) (3-7)
and
y = m ⋅ log(cosh( a 2 ⋅ z )) , (3-8)

with a, k, and m as coefficients (Corradi and Filemio 2004).


Further information about the arch shapes can be found in Chapter 1.

3.2.1.2 Arch thickness d at crown

In 1669, Fabri published a geometrical arch model that corresponds with


the typical three-hinge model nowadays. Based on this model, the thickness
of the arch e subject to the extrados radius R could be estimated (Kurrer
2002)
e1 = 2 ⋅ R ⋅ (3 − 2 ⋅ 2 ) = 0.343 ⋅ R (3-9)

and the radius of the intrados r was given with


3.2 Empirical Rules 105

r = R ⋅ (4 ⋅ 2 − 5) = 0.657 ⋅ R . (3-10)

The line of thrust is therefore completely inside the arch. However, the
arch thickness can further be computed for a failure angle of the arch. For
example, if 45° are assumed, then the thickness becomes
eo. Fabri = 0,5 ⋅ R ⋅ (2 − 2) = 0.293 ⋅ R . (3-11)

According to Fabri, arches with this thickness are always stable. A


lower thickness can also be stable, but that depends on the special condi-
tions (Kurrer 2002).
In 1730 Couplet introduced a thickness value based on the following
observations:
eu.Couplet = 0,096 ⋅ R . (3-12)

Arches with lower thickness are always unstable (Kurrer 2002).


As mentioned before, the thickness depends on the assumed failure angle
in the arch. Whereas Fabri and Couplet assumed 45°, Heyman estimated
the angle with 58.8° and computed the required thickness (Kurrer 2002) as
follows:
eu , Heyman = 0,101 ⋅ R . (3-13)

Alberti suggested the following minimum thickness of the arch at the


crown (Kurrer 2002):
2 ⋅r (3-14)
eu , Alberti = = 0,131 ⋅ R .
10
Croizette-Desnoyer’s formulae is another empirical rule for thickness
(Corradi and Filemio 2004, Martín-Caro and Martínez 2004, Modena et al.
2004)
e = a + b ⋅ 2⋅r (3-15)

with a and b as coefficients subject to the type of loading (railway or


road traffic). Genio Civile suggested the following formulae (Corradi and
Filemio 2004):
l (3-16)
e = 0.05 ⋅ h + 0.40 ⋅ l + 2 ⋅ (10 + l ) ⋅ .
100 ⋅ f
Sejourne has also suggested a formulae (Martín-Caro and Martínez
2004). Busch and Zumpe (1995) have investigated historical arch bridges
and have given the following rule for the arch thickness at the crown:
106 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

eS = 0.37 + 0.028 ⋅ l > 0.5 m . (3-17)


This value can additionally be adjusted between 0.3 and 1.9 depending
on the masonry quality, the coverage and the loading type. The minimum
coverage thickness can also be computed by
h = 0.5 + 0.015 ⋅ l . (3-18)
The axial force N in the arch at the crown is given by
q ⋅ l2 (3-19)
N=H=
8⋅ f
where q represents the loading.
The axial force can be used to compute the stress inside the arch, which
can then be compared to the compress strength of the arch. A simplified
rule for stress evaluation at an arch crown was given by Dischinger (1949):
l2 (3-20)
σ = γi ⋅ ,
8⋅ f
where γi is the characteristic weight of the bridge. For long span, low-
pitched arches, γi amounts to 30 kN/m and for slender, tall bridges, the
3

3
value reached 40 kN/m .
How the rules for the thickness of the arch key or arch crown were used
in practice is shown by some statistical investigations from Purtak (2004)
and Busch and Zumpe (1995). Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the results of
these investigations in terms of key thickness versus span.
3.2 Empirical Rules 107

Fig. 3-3. Ratio of arch thickness at crown to span according to Purtak (2004)

Fig. 3-4. Ratio of arch thickness at crown to span according to Busch and Zumpe
(1995)

Besides the thickness of the arch at the crown, in many cases, simply the
key stone thickness e versus the span l was given. Alberti gave e/l = 1/15,
108 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Palladio 1/12, and Serlio 1/17. These values were mainly based on obser-
vations of Roman bridges. For example, the Pont de Gard reached e/l = 1/15.
Gautier recommended
1⋅ l2
e= (3-21)
18
at the beginning of the 18th century for bridges made of strong stones
and with a span greater than 10 m. For bridges with softer stones, a mini-
mum thickness of 0.32 m was required.
Many further rules were established, most of them in the 19th century,
and are listed in Table 3-3 and visualised in Fig. 3-5 (Corradi and Filemio
2004, Corradi 1998).

Table 3-3. Different empirical arch thickness formulas


Dupuit for segmental arches e = 0.15 ⋅ l 0.5
Dupuit for semi-circular arches e = 0.20 ⋅ l 0.5
Rankine e = 0.191 ⋅ R 0.5
Gautier for semi-circular arches e = 0.32 + 1/15 ⋅ l
Perronet for semi-circular arches e = 0.325 + (1/ 24 − 1/144) ⋅ l
Lesguillier for semi-circular arches e = 0.10 + 0.20
Dejardin for semi-circular arches e = 0.30 + 0.045 ⋅ l
Dejardin for circular arches e = 0.30 + 0.025 ⋅ l
Dejardin for elliptical arches e = 0.30 + 0.014 ⋅ l
Further equation e = 0.2 ⋅ l
German and Russian engineers for segmental e = 0.43 + 0.1 ⋅ ρ
arches
Perronet e = 0.325 + 0.0694 ⋅ ρ
Perronet for semi-circular arches e = 0.325 + 0.035 ⋅ l
Lesguillier for segmental arches e = 0.10 + 0.20 ⋅ l 0.5
L’Eveillé for segmental arches e = 0.33 + 0.033 ⋅ l
German and Russian engineers for semi-circular e = 0.43 + 0.05 ⋅ l
arches
Gauthey for semi-circular arches e = 0.33, l < 2 m
e = 0.33 + 0.020833 ⋅ l,
Gauthey for semi-circular arches
2 m < l < 16 m
e = 0.0416 ⋅ l,
Gauthey for semi-circular arches
16 m < l < 32 m
e = 1.33 + 0.020833 ⋅ (l − 32m),
Gauthey for semi-circular arches
l > 32 m
E. Roy for semi-circular arches e = 0.30 + 0.04 ⋅ l
Michon for semi-circular arches e = 0.40 + 0.04 ⋅ l

R – radius of the circle passing through the crown joint and the intrados springing in
metre, l – span in metre, e – key stone thickness in metre and ρ as curvature radius,
3.2 Empirical Rules 109

l
for segmental arch bridges, ρ = ,
2
l2 f
for full circular arch bridges, ρ = +
8⋅ f 2
l2
and for elliptical arch bridges, ρ =
4⋅ f

Fig. 3-5. Crown joint thickness e versus the span l according to different functions
(Huerta 2004, Corrodi 1998)

Castigliano detected that the equations from circular arches and segmen-
tal arches can be converted by considering a limited span of the circular
arch in terms of l’=0.866·l. Using this equation, the factor for Dupuits for-
mula changes from 0.2 to 0.14. The conversion was also valid for
L’Eveillé’s equation (Coraddi 1998).
Kaven’s equation was given as
⎛ l⎞ (3-22)
e = 0.25 m + l ⋅ ⎜ 0.025 + 0.00333 ⋅ ⎟ .
⎝ f⎠
The equation was valid for spans smaller than 12 m and arches made of
very strong stone material. Furthermore, the height of the superstructure
110 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

above the crown was limited to 1.5 m. Greater fillings required a specific
adaptation
Road bridges: 1 + 0.214 ⋅ h , (3-23)

Railway bridges: 1 + 0.14 ⋅ h .


Additionally, if the bridge was made up of brick stone, the arch thickness
should be further increased by a factor of 1.5.
Huste’s equation was given as
e =α⋅ ρ (3-24)

with
α = 0.165 for arches built of strong stone material,
α = 0.220 for arches built of brick stones,
α = 0.247 for arches built of soft stone material,
According to Corradi (1998), Italian engineers used
l 20 + l l (3-25)
e = 0.20 m + + + .
40 1000 f
Résal’s equation is given as (Coraddi 1998)
l (3-26)
e = 0.15 m + 0.20 ⋅
2⋅ f
Croizette-Desnoyers’s equation is given as (Corradi 1998)
e = k1 + k2 ⋅ ρ (3-27)

with ρ as curvature of the arch. The factors depend on the shape and the
type of the bridge, and are given in Table 3-4 (Corradi 1998).

Table 3-4. Croizette-Desnoyers’s factors (Corradi 1998)


Circular arch
Road bridge Railway bridge
f/l k1 k2 k1 k2
1/2 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.17
Segmental arch
Road bridge Railway bridge
f/l k1 k2 k1 k2
1/4 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.17
1/6 0.15 0.14 0.20 0.16
3.2 Empirical Rules 111

Segmental arch
Road bridge Railway bridge
1/8 0.15 0.13 0.20 0.15
1/10 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.14
1/12 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.13
For skewed bridges, Résal recommended increasing the thickness ac-
cording to
e (3-28)
e' = ,
sin α
where α is the skewness of the bridge in grad.
Further equations are given in Leliavsky (1982). Taken from that refer-
ence, the equation of Heinzerling is given as
e = k1 + k2 ⋅ r . (3-29)
The factors are given in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5. Heinzerlings factors (Leliavsky 1982)


k1 k2
0.4 0.028 Brick stone masonry
0.42 0.032 Ashlar masonry

The equation of Schwarz reads as follows:


1 l ⋅Q (3-30)
e = 0.2 + ⋅ .
21 zul σ
Further equations from Melan, Landberg and Mehrtens should only be
mentioned (Leliavsky 1982).

3.2.1.3 Arch thickness at springing


In 1845, Dejardin suggested the following formula for the thickness of
arches:
e (3-31)
e1 =
cos ϕ
The angle is measured from the crown (Corradi 1998). If this formula is
applied, then the extrados follows a Nicomede conchoids or Pericycloid if
the intrados follows a circular shape. However, the suggested formula can
not be applied for half-circle arches because the thickness of the stones at
springing becomes infinite. Therefore, the thickness of the arch stones is
often not altered for an angle of 60°.
112 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

The maximum thickness of the arch stones then becomes


e1 = 1.4 ⋅ e . (3-32)

This equation corresponds with a suggestion by Tavernier in 1907.


However, in contrast to the description of the change of the stones, he fur-
thermore suggests (Corradi 1998)
e (3-33)
e1 = .
cos ϕ
Another equation is given as
1.125 ⋅ ( ρ + e ) ≤ R < 1.25 ⋅ ( ρ + e ) . (3-34)
The results of the later equation give values between Dejardin’s and
Tavernier’s suggestions. Furthermore, Croizette-Desnoyers’s rules were
widely applied:
f f (3-35)
s= = .
l 2⋅a
The parameters for the formula are given in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Parameters for arch stone thickness


s 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 1/8 1/10 1/12
Half circular - 1.80 - 1.40 1.25 1.15 1.10
Elliptic 1.80 1.60 1.40 - - - -

Weber (1999) describes the change of the vault thickness as quadratic or


bilinear.

3.2.1.4 Thickness of foundation


Besides the design of the arch shape, the thickness of the arch itself at the
crown and at the springing of the abutment has to be chosen carefully.
Many empirical relationships were published concerning this question.
Design variables were Ss as the thickness of the abutment, r as the rise of
the arch, L as width, e as the thickness of the crown joint, h as the distance
from the springing line to the foundation base, and h1 as the height of the
backing. The parameter H is defined as
H = h + f + e + 0.60 , h1 < 0.60 m , (3-36)

H = h + f + e + h1 , h1 > 0.60 m .
3.2 Empirical Rules 113

Many different formulas exist for the computation of thickness Ss of the


abutment (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7. List of equations for the computation of the abutment thickness Ss
(Corradi 1998)
Author Equation
Semicircular arch
Lesguillier Ss = (0.60 + 0.04 ⋅ h ) ⋅ l
L’Éveillé 0.865 ⋅ l ⋅ ( h + 0.25 ⋅ l )
Ss = (0.60 + 0.162 ⋅ l ) ⋅
H ⋅ (0.25 ⋅ l + e )
German and Russian 5 h h
engineers Ss = 0.305 + ⋅l + + 1
24 6 12
Segmental arch bridges
Lesguillier ⎡ ⎛l ⎞ ⎤
Ss = ⎢0.60 + 1.10 ⋅ ⎜ − 2 ⎟ + 0.04 ⋅ h ⎥ ⋅ l
⎣ ⎝ f ⎠ ⎦
L’Éveillé l⋅h
Ss = (0.33 + 0.212 ⋅ l ) ⋅
H ⋅ ( f + e)
German engineers ⎛ 3 ⋅ l − f ⎞ 2 ⋅ h + h1
Ss = 0.305 + 0.125 ⋅ l ⋅ ⎜ ⎟+
⎝ l+ f ⎠ 12
Italian engineers ⎛ 10 + 0.5 ⋅ l ⎞ ⎛ l ⎞
Ss = 0.05 ⋅ h + 0.20 ⋅ l + ⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ f ⎠
Semi-elliptical arches
Lesguillier ⎡ ⎛l ⎞ ⎤
Ss = ⎢0.60 + 0.05 ⋅ ⎜ − 2 ⎟ + 0.04 ⋅ h ⎥ ⋅ l
⎣ ⎝f ⎠ ⎦
L’Éveillé
⎛ h + 0.54 ⋅ f ⎞ ⎛ 0.84 ⋅ l ⎞
Ss = (0.43 + 0.154 ⋅ l ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝ H ⎠ ⎝ 0.65 ⋅ f + e ⎠
German engineers ⎛ 10 + 0.5 ⋅ l ⎞ ⎛ l ⎞
Ss = 0.05 ⋅ h + 0.20 ⋅ l + ⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ f ⎠
Manuale del’Ingenere ⎛ 0.17 ⋅ l ⎞
Ss = l ⋅ ⎜ 0.42 + + 0.44 ⋅ h ⎟ bei h1 < 1.50 m
⎝ 2 ⋅ f ⎠
⎛ 0.17 ⋅ l ⎞
Ss = l ⋅ ⎜ 0.42 + + 0.44 ⋅ h ⎟ + 0.0185 ⋅ H ⋅ h1
⎝ 2 ⋅ f ⎠
bei h1 ≥ 1.50 m und mit H = h + f + e
114 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Author Equation
Hütte l ⎛ 3⋅ l − f ⎞ h
Ss = ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + 1.00 +
8 ⎝ f +l ⎠ 6
and for semi-circular arches
5 h
Ss = ⋅ l + 1.00 +
24 6
Croizette-Desnoyers ⎛ l⋅h ⎞
Ss = 0.33 + 0.212 ⋅ l ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ H ⋅ ( f + e ) ⎠
Italian railway engineers Ss = 0.20 + 0.030 ⋅ ( ρ + 2 ⋅ e) + 0.10 ⋅ h

A discussion of some formulas is given in Corradi (1998).


Besides the abutment thickness, the pier width also had to be estimated.
Here, some general rules such as the pier width have to have at least the
thickness of the abutment, and the pier width has to have at least twice the
thickness of the crown joint to be fulfilled. Furthermore, possible hydro
dynamic water pressure had to be considered. Finally, some equations for
the computation of the pier width are given in Table 3-8. The variables are
h as the height from the foundation springing line to the haunch joints of
rupture, H represents the distance between the foundation line and the
bridge road line, e is the thickness of the crown joint, f is the distance be-
tween the crown joint extrados and the haunch joint of rupture, d is the
horizontal distance between the haunch joints of rupture, P is the weight of
the section of arch up to the joint of rupture, ω is the weight of the bridge
construction material, and k is a safety factor (Corradi 1998).

Table 3-8. Computation of the pier width according to different authors (Corradi
1998)
Author Formula and arch shape
L’Éveillé Circular arch
h
E = (0.33 + 0.212 ⋅ D ) ⋅ H
f +e
D
Half-circular arch
h + 0.25 ⋅ D
E = (0.60 + 0.162 ⋅ D) ⋅ H
0.25 ⋅ D + e
0.865 ⋅ D
Basket arch
3.2 Empirical Rules 115

Author Formula and arch shape


h + 0.54 ⋅ D
E = (0.42 + 0.154 ⋅ D ) ⋅ H
0.465 ⋅ D + e
0.84 ⋅ D
Séjourne 1
E > ⋅l
5
E = 0.4 + 0.15 ⋅ l
E = 0.8 + 0.1 ⋅ l
Perronet E = 2.25 ⋅ e
Castigliano S
E= s
2
Colombo E = 0.20 ⋅ h '+ 0.6
1 1
E = ⋅l , E = ⋅l
6 10
h’ as pier height from foundation to springing
Further applied formula E = 0.292 + 2 ⋅ e
Further applied formula E = 2.50 ⋅ e für l ≤ 10 m
E = 3.50 ⋅ e für l > 10 m
Further applied formula 1 1
⋅l < E < ⋅l
10 5
Minimum value E > ∑ e1 , if several arches

3.2.1.5 Maximum arch length


Weber (1999) has estimated the maximum arch length of certain materials
based on the breaking length of the material. The breaking length of the
material is the maximum length of a bar of a certain material where the
tensile or compression strength of the material and the stress caused by the
self-weight of the bar are equal. In Table 3-9, the breaking length for
different construction materials is summarized.
σ (3-37)
lim l = π ⋅ .
γw

Table 3-9. Theoretical maximum span of arch bridges for different materials
(Weber 1999)
Material lim l in m
St 37 6,467
GS-52 7,585
116 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Material lim l in m
Brick masonry 205–748
Natural stone masonry 145–785
Reinforced concrete 228–1870
Lightweight concrete 524–2,244
Coniferous wood 6,912–8,639

3.2.1.6 Coefficient of boldness


Very interesting parameters describing the capacity utilization of an arch
bridge are so-called coefficients of boldness. Such boldness numbers were
developed by different authors. First, the number originating from Résal is
introduced. The number is computed as
l⋅ρ (3-38)
A= .
2
The variables are explained in Table 3-10 and in the footnotes of Table 3-3.
Furthermore, examples for different bridges are given there.

Table 3-10. Résal’s coefficient of boldness taken from Corradi (1998)


Bridge Span l in m Rise f in m Arch thickness e in cm A
Fouchard Bridge 26.0 2.6 33.8 439
Nogent Bridge 50.0 25.0 25.0 625
Tournon Bridge 49.2 17.7 25.9 639
Antoinette Bridge 50.0 15.9 27.6 690
Lavaur Bridge 61.5 27.5 30.9 931
Moskwa Bridge 44.8 5.6 7.6 1066
Cloris Bridge 50.0 7.4 46.0 1150
Chester Bridge 61.0 12.8 42.9 1308
Cabin John Bridge 67.0 17.6 40.7 1363
Trezzo Bridge 72.3 20.7 42.0 1517
Soupees arch 37.9 2.1 88.0 1667

Another such performance parameter is Spangenberg’s coefficient of


boldness:
l2 (3-39)
k= .
f
Spangenberg’s number is widely known. However, Weber (1999) has
shown that for a parabolic arch second order, Spangenberg’s number cor-
responds with eight times the curvature radius of the arch at the crown.
3.2 Empirical Rules 117

The number can also be adapted to other arch curvatures as shown in Table
3-11.

Table 3-11. Spangenbergs boldness number (Weber 1999)


Arch shape Spangenberg’s number represents
Parabola second order 8⋅ ρ
Parabola fourth order 8 ⋅ ρ ⋅ (1 − c )
⎛ l2 ⎞
Catenary First type ≈ 8 ⋅ ρ ⋅ ⎜1 − 2 ⎟
⎝ 48 ⋅ ρ ⎠
⎛ f ⎞
Segmental circular arch 8 ⋅ r ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ 2 ⋅r ⎠
Sinus curvature (half wave) π2 ⋅ρ
Upper elliptic half 4⋅ρ
l arch span, f arch rise, ρ curvature radius

Weber (1999) criticizes both definition and content of Spangenberg’s


number. For example, the consideration of the arch thickness would be
compelling. Based on the Hugi’s self-capacity utilization
g (3-40)
ω= .
g+ p
Weber (1999) defines
g χ (3-41)
χ= and ω = .
p 1+ χ
Weber (1999) has then introduced a boldness number that considers the
• Static system
• Cross-section geometry
• Load pattern
• Construction material
• Slenderness
• Structural size
The number is given as
3 1 (3-42)
⋅λ +
2 k0
ω=
3 1
16 ⋅ θ + ⋅ λ −
2 k0
118 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

with
f l l f (3-43)
k0 = ,θ= ,λ= , l = d
l l d4 γw

and d4 as arch thickness at the quarter point. Examples are given in


Table 3-12.
For further analytical models of the ultimate load-bearing behaviour, see
Audenaert et al. 2007.

Table 3-12. Weber’s ω and Spangenberg’s boldness number k for certain bridge
structures including further parameters (Weber 1999)
Bridge1 Year l in m f/l d4 l/d4 M.2 ω k
Thur Bridge Kurmmenau (S) 1911 63.3 1/4.57 2.26 27.99 LM 0.65 289
Iller Bridge St. Buchlow-Kempten 1906 63.8 1/2.48 1.94 32.89 TC 0.51 158
Iller Bridge St. Buchlow-Lindau 1906 64.5 1/2.34 1.98 32.58 AM 0.51 151
Prut Bridge Karemča (U) 18923 65.0 1/3.63 2.60 25.0 AM 0.48 236
Rummel Bridge Sidi-Rached (A) 1912 68.0 1/3.09 1.52 44.74 AM 0.65 210
Adda Bridge bei Morbegno (I) 1904 70.0 1/7.00 1.73 40.46 AM 0.61 490
Roizonne Bridge, La Mure (F) 1916 79.5 1/2.10 1.60 49.66 AM 0.70 169
Valserine Bridge, Montages (F) 1910 80.3 1/4.01 2.00 40.15 AM 0.69 322
Pétruss Bridge (L) 1903 84.6 1/2.71 1.80 47.03 AM 0.71 229
Soča Bridge, Solkan (SL) 1927 85.0 1/3.90 2.45 34.69 AM 0.59 332
Friedens Bridge in Plauen 1904 90.0 1/5.00 1.65 54.55 LM 0.69 495
Lot Bridge in Villeneuve (F) 1920 96.3 1/6.23 1.45 66.38 TC 0.82 600
Nanpan Bridge Changhong (C) 1961 112.5 1/5.43 2.21 50.90 AM 611
Chang Bridge Jiuxigou, Feng.(C) 1972 116.0 1/80 1.87 62.03 AM 928
Wuchao Bridge, Fong-Huan (C) 1990 120.0 1/50 1.50 80.00 AM 0.88 600
120 m Bridge Project (A-H) 120.0 1/3.6 5.10 23.53 AM 0.69 432
1
S – Switzerland, SL – Slovenia, U – Ukraine, C – China, A–H – Austria–Hungry,
L – Luxemburg, F – France, A – Algeria, names without country identification are
in Germany located
2
LM – Layered masonry, TC – tamped concrete, AM – Ashlar masonry,
M. – Material
3
1916 destroyed by the Russian army, 1927 reconstructed
3.2 Empirical Rules 119

3.2.2 Modern Rules

3.2.2.1 MEXE method

The MEXE method (Military Engineering Experimental Establishment) is


probably the best known simple method for the load-bearing assessment of
historical arch bridges. The method is heavily applied not only in Great
Britain (Huges and Blackler 1997), the country of origin, but also in many
other countries since it was included in UIC-Codex (1995).
Early works for the development of this method were carried out by
Pippard in the 1930s. The basic assumption was linear-elastic behaviour of
the material. Especially during the World War II, Pippard’s method found
wide application for the assessment of historical arch bridges under mili-
tary loads. However, since military loads changed later due to the new
NATO, the method had to be revised. The revision based on the work by
Pippard yielded to the first-generation MEXE method. The testing of sev-
eral arch bridges in Great Britain in the 1950s provided newer results,
which could be considered again for a revision of the method. Therefore,
in the 1960s, also caused by changing live loads, the method was modified
(Das 1995).
The application of the method is simple and fast. An example will show
that. First, the conditions found have to comply with the boundary condi-
tions of the method. The boundary conditions are given in Table 3-13.

Table 3-13. Boundary conditions of the MEXE method


Requirements Example
Span smaller then 20 m 10 m
Rise greater then ¼ of the clear span ¼ ×10 = 2.5>1.8 m
Filling above crown is between 30 and 105 1.2–0.5 = 0.7 m
cm

The load-bearing behaviour is then computed with


Qadm = Q p ⋅ f (3-44)

with
Qadm (3-45)
qadm =
1.5 m
and
120 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

1 (3-46)
f = fS ⋅ f M ⋅ f J ⋅ fC ⋅ f N ⋅ .

The factor f considers a variety of parameters. The first one is the arch
shape factor:
rq 1.4 (rc − rq ) 0.6
(1.8 − 1.4)0.6 (3-47)
= = 0.78 → fS = 2.3 ⋅ = 2.3 ⋅ = 0.95 .
rc 1.8 rc 1.4
Further factors, which have to be taken from diagrams and tables, are
the following:
Material factor
f M = 1.0 . (3-48)

Joint factor
f J = fW ⋅ fmo . (3-49)
Joint thickness factor
fW = 0.8 → Joint thickness > 12.5 mm . (3-50)
Mortar factor
fmo = 0.9 → weak, crumbly mortar . (3-51)
Factor for the arch condition
fc = 0.85 → Longitudinal cracks in the middle third of the arch (3-52)
Factor for the numbers of arches
f N = 0.8 → Arch supported by two piers . (3-53)
And, f can be computed as
1 (3-54)
f = 0.95 ⋅1.0 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ 0.9 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ 0.8 ⋅ = 0.372 .
1.25
Using this value, one can read from a diagram (UIC-Codex 1995)
Q p = 425 kN (3-55)

Qadm = 0.425 MN ⋅ 0.372 = 0.158 MN (3-56)


3.2 Empirical Rules 121

0.158 MN (3-57)
qadm = = 0.105 MN/m .
1.5 m
As shown, the method can be quickly applied. This explains the wide
application. However, some authors such as Brencich et al. (2001) have
criticized the method that produces unsafe results under some circums-
tances.
Therefore, it is not surprizing that beside the successful and wide appli-
cation of the MEXE method in the last few years, major efforts have been
undertaken to develop successors of the MEXE-method. A few such me-
thods will be introduced in the following sections.

3.2.2.2 FILEV method

Martín-Caro and Martínez (2004) have developed the FILEV method


based on nearly 800 bridge models with different parameters for which the
ultimate load bearing was investigated with the FE-program Sofistic. Table
3-14 gives a summary of the investigated parameter combinations for sin-
gle loads and Table 3-15 for uniform loads. The meaning of some of the
parameters is shown in Fig. 3-6. The computation database was then used
for derivation of approximation equations. However, of course, such equa-
tions include some simplifications. For example, the live load was consi-
dered either only as single load with changing position or as a uniform
load over half entire arch span, respectively. The position of the single
load was modified between 1/5 and 1/2 of the arch span. Furthermore, for
the single load, only the development of a four-hinge mechanism or shear
failure was considered as failure. For the uniform load, additional com-
pression failure was allowed.

Table 3-14. Investigated parameter combinations for single loads


Spannweite l in m c/l f/l ho in m hp in m bp/l µ γ in γfill in
kN/m3 kN/m3
5.00 0.10 1/2 0.25 2.0 1/4 0.60 20.0 18.0
7.50 0.09 1/4 0.50 5.0 1/6 0.80
10.00 0.07 1/6 2.00 10.0 1/8
12.50 0.06
15.00 0.05
17.50
20.00
122 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Table 3-15. Investigated parameter combinations for uniform loads


Spannweite l in m f/l ho in m fc in MPa γ in kN/m3
5.00 1/2 0.40 4.0 20.0
10.00 1/6 6.0
20.00 8.0
10.0

Fig. 3-6. Introduction of variables of the FILEV method

The arch width was chosen constant with 3.0 m, and the load spreading
in the backfill was considered with 30°. Dead load was included with a
partial safety factor of 1.0, and uniform live load was considered with a
partial safety factor of either 1.0 or 1.35. Further assumptions are the
following:
• The bridge is straight and neither skewed nor bended
• The bridge is only a one span arch bridge
• Adjacent arches have the same span
• Abutments are considered as infinite stiff
• The bridge is not damaged
• The backfill is not hollowed
• The span is between 2 and 20 m
• The minimum ratio of rise to span is f/l>1/6
• The ratio of arch thickness at the crown should follow the values given
in Table 3-15
• Backfill exists above extrados between the abutments. The height of the
backfill is computed based on the ratio of rise to span for high arches
(f/l = 1/2) with hbackfill = 0.6 × f and for flat arches (f/l = 1/6) with
h = 0.3 × f
• The filling above crown is assumed between 0.25 and 2.0 m
• The maximum pier height is considered with 10 m
• The maximum pier width is at least 1/6 of the arch span
3.2 Empirical Rules 123

Table 3-16. Ratio between arch thickness at crown c and arch span l
l in m 2.0–5.0 5.0–7.5 7.5–10.0 10.0–15.0 15.0–20.0
c/l ≥ 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05

3.2.2.3 Method by Harvey et al.


Currently, Harvey (2007) and Harvey et al. (2007a) have developed a
substitute method for the MEXE method. Unfortunately, not much was
known about the new method at the time this book was printed. However,
new material will probably be published in the years to come.
In general, Harvey et al. (2007) promised that the method will be simp-
ler to use and will behave robustly. The method can be applied by artisans
and will probably include nomograms such as shown in Fig. 3-7.

Fig. 3-7. General outline of the Harvey method (Harvey et al. 2007)

3.2.2.4 Method by Purtak et al.


Purtak et al. (2007) have developed curvatures for the ultimate load of his-
torical arch bridges based on finite element simulations using the program
ANSYS. The simulation considers not only material nonlinear behaviour
of the stone material using the Mohr–Coulomb model, but also openings of
joints. The load-bearing curvatures have been constructed for a great vari-
ety of different materials and geometrical parameters, such as stone width
to height, joint thickness, stone and mortar compression strength, stone
tensile strength, and eccentricity. Due to the variety of different parameters,
the curvatures are able to cover a wide range of different conditions, such
as compression failure or development of mechanisms. Figure 3-8 shows
only a simple example of such load-bearing curvatures.
124 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-8. Example of ultimate load versus eccentricity functions (Purtak et al.
2007)

3.2.2.5 Method by Martinez et al.


Martinez et al. (2001) have also developed ultimate load-bearing
curvatures for the crown arch thickness depending on the stone material’s
compression strength, the ratio between rise and span, and the span. Again,
this method permits a very quick estimation of the ultimate load-bearing
behaviour of the arch bridge.

3.2.2.6 Method by Aita et al.


Aita et al. (2007) discuss the application of two different methods for the
assessment of stress levels in arch systems based on geometrical and mate-
rial properties. They apply the methods to semicircular and pointed arches
and receive the so-called stability area curvatures. Such stability area cur-
vatures can be extended towards diagrams including maximum arch-wall
system height related to arch thickness or maximum height versus volume.

3.2.2.7 Method of Pauser

The consulting company of Pauser in Vienna has developed a method of


estimating the load-bearing capacity for arch bridges in a fast way. How-
ever, it has been strongly suggested that a computer program should be
provided for the computation since several correction parameters consider-
ing different conditions at the bridge have to be estimated.
3.3 Beam Models 125

The program is based on linear-elastic failure concept. It uses pre-


computed tables comparable to the technique by Purtak. Finally, the load-
bearing capacity of the arch bridge can be related to diagrams shown in
Fig. 3-9 (Heinlein 2008, Pauser 2005).

Fig. 3-9. Interaction diagram for an arch cross section (Heinlein 2008)

3.3 Beam Models

3.3.1 Single Beam Models

With the introduction of analytical models, the epoch of beam models was
also started. Whereas the first beam models had to comply with the re-
requirement of simple hand computation (static determined structures), this
requirement does not hold nowadays. With the loss of this requirement,
beam models were more and more extended to consider more and more
effects on the arch bridge load behaviour yielding more precise results.
This evolution is shown in Table 3-17. Whereas the first models simply
chanced the number of predefined hinges, the backfill, elastic foundation,
and roadway structures were also considered later. The last model from
Gocht (1978) is mainly suited for arch bridges with a reinforced roadway
or railway slab.
126 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Table 3-17. Evolution of beam models for arch bridges


Type of model Visualization
Fixed arch without
backfill

Two hinge arch without


backfill

Three hinge arch without


backfill according to Ril
805 or UIC Codex

Backfill considered

Model according to
Voigtländer (1971)

Model according to
Model (1977)

Model for arch with


roadway slab according
to Gocht (1978)

The consideration of further elements of arch bridges is required since


the arch itself, although the biggest single contribution to the load-bearing
behaviour of arch bridges, is only one element of several. Weber (1999)
has quantified the contribution of the single elements of an arch super-
structure based on a test. In general, he proposed a factor of 1.5 increased
load-bearing capacity from the single-span pure arch to the single-span
3.3 Beam Models 127

arch bridge. Based on Fig. 3-10, this factor is wide on the safe side. Another
rough measure considering further elements in an arch superstructure was
given by the former German national railway. Without any further proof
the railway permitted an increase of 20% in the load-bearing capacity of
historical arch bridges by building reinforced concrete slabs on the bridges
(DR 1985). This corresponds with the model from Gocht (1978).
The load-increasing effects of roadway and pavement concrete are also
known from other bridge types. For example, Gutermann (2002) has inves-
tigated the influence of the three elements and found experimentally an in-
crease of the load-bearing capacity by the road asphalt layer of about 3%,
by the pavement concrete of about 12%, and the protection concrete up to
10%. However, the investigation of Gutermann (2002) was carried out on
serviceability levels and in terms of stresses and deformations.

Fig. 3-10. Contribution of different structural elements to the load bearing based
on measurements on the railway arch bridge Schauenstein (Weber 1999)

The contribution of further structural elements in arch bridges has been


known for a long time. For example, Craemer (1943) already stated a
change of the line of trust caused by the backfill in arch bridges. Fischer
(1940–1942) has investigated the shear stress between the arch and the
backfill. For simplification reasons, he only considered three-hinge arches.
Jäger (1938) proved an increased load-bearing capacity of arch bridges
when shear forces were transferred to the backfill. Herzog (1962) also
showed an higher load-bearing capacity. He found a lower eccentricity
128 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

when backfill was acting. However, he only considered the same Young
modulus for the arch and the backfill. Bienert (1959–1960) and Bienert et
al. (1960–1962) also discussed the effects on the load-bearing behaviour of
arch bridges caused by backfill. A very intensive list of references can be
found in Gocht (1978).
Furthermore, Gocht (1978) has developed some models that should be
shown here. First, he developed a model that if no shear forces are trans-
ferred between the arch and the backfill, a roadway slab still exists. Later,
he discussed the effects of an active height of the backfill. Figures 3-8 and
3-9 show the height considering a solid joint or a sliding joint between the
arch and the backfill. Also, Fig. 3-11 considers whether a joint at the
springing exists. Figure 3-12 shows that a solid joint between the arch and
the backfill can also have negative effects. Then, a flat arch can develop
inside the backfill. These effects also change the span of the arch.

Fig. 3-11. Model of the effective height of the arch by consideration of the backfill
according to Gocht (1978). Left figure shows the height without a springing joint
and right figure with springing joint

Fig. 3-12. Effective height for a half-cycle arch based on Gocht (1978)

Indeed, the collapse of the Italian Traversa railway bridge between Tu-
rin and Genoa was related to such a change of system (Brencich and Colla
2002). Figure 3-13 shows the plan and front view of the collapsed bridge.
Please compare this figure with Fig. 3-12 (right).
3.3 Beam Models 129

Fig. 3-13. Traversa Bridge in Italy after partial collapse according to Brencich and
Colla (2002)

Smith et al. (2004) have given an estimation of the increase of the load-
bearing behaviour by backfill and coverage, respectively, as shown in Fig.
3-14.

Fig. 3-14. Increase of the load-bearing behaviour if coverage is considered (Smith


et al. 2004)

Molins and Roca (1998) not only have shown the influence of the
backfill, but also of other structural elements. For two arches, they have
computed the failure load to 15 and 16 kN, respectively, if only the arch
itself is considered. If the model is extended with spandrel walls, the
failure load increases to 46 and 48 kN, respectively. However, only if
tensile bars (tie) are considered, the experimental failure loads in the
range of 90 kN can be achieved by numerical investigation. That means
that the arch itself contributes only by 25%, which fits very well with the
130 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

results from Weber (1999). The results from Molins and Roca (1998) are
summarized in Table 3-18.

Table 3-18. Results from Molins and Roca (1998)


Arch c Arch d
Ultimate load measured 60 kN 95 kN
Ultimate load computed with
arch and backfill at arch 2 15 kN 16.1 kN
Arch and spandrel walls 46 kN 48 kN
Arch, spandrel wall, and tie bars considered 60 kN 91 kN

Comparable results were published by Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2004).


They have investigated the influence of the backfill at the real size tests in
the United Kingdom at the Prestwood Bridge. The bridge had a span of
6.55 m, a rise of 1.428 m, and the thickness of the arch at the key of 0.22
m. The coverage at the key was 0.165 m. The load was introduced at ¼
point over the entire width of 3.0 m. The bridge collapsed by a four-hinge
mechanism at a load of 228 kN. The masonry compression strength was
assumed to be 4 MPa. Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2004) computed the load
capacity of the pure arch without backfill in the range of 46 kN. This
would correspond to 20% of the overall load-bearing capacity. Another
example by Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2004) also gave a load contribution
by the pure arch between 33 and 50% of the overall load-bearing capacity.
See also Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2005).
Royles and Hendry (1991) have also investigated the influence of the
backfill, masonry backup, and spandrel walls on the overall load-bearing
capacity of arch bridges. They reach an improvement compared to the pure
arch of factor 2–12, which would correspond to 8–50%. Becke (2005) has
given an increase of the load by backfill compared to the pure arch of fac-
tor 3 (33%). However, Becke distinguishes between effective and nonef-
fective backfills. This distinction depends on the stiffness of the backfill: If
the stiffness of the backfill is less than 1/100 of the arch, the backfill is not
effective and cannot be considered.
If the backfill is not continuous over the arch, it still can contribute to
the load bearing. Braune (1980) mentions that even transverse and vaults
support the arch.
Latest works about the influence of the backfill and the spandrel walls
are Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2007) and Harvey et al. (2007b).
Besides the backfill, the spandrel walls can also significantly contribute
to the load bearing. For example, Voigtländer (1971) has given a decrease
of stresses of the arch, if the spandrel wall is functioning, of about 20%.
However, this decrease is not found in all areas of the arch over the arch
3.3 Beam Models 131

length: usually experiments only found a decrease in stresses at the spring-


ing, not at the crown. At the crown, the spandrel walls usually do not reach
good bond conditions. Triebecker has developed a method for the consid-
eration of the spandrel wall in beam models: he simply considers the arch
as fixed beam and supports this beam with an additional beam. This sec-
ond beam should consider the positive effects of the spandrel wall.
Schreyer (1960) also has mentioned the active functioning of the spandrel
walls.
The description of the load-bearing effects of further structural elements
besides the arch itself is already an indicator for the difficulty of the
development of a beam model for arch bridges. In many cases, the models
are heavily disputed. Some codes give general indications such as the Ri
805, which simply states that every model that yields to an equilibrium can
be applied. On the one hand, sometimes models are claimed such as
shown in Fig. 3-15. Here, the limitations of developed hinges during
collapse are considered in that way that under all conditions a moment
has to be applied.
On the other hand, if hinges develop, then the stresses decrease. Model
(1977) suggests a 30% drop of the stresses in the arch after cracks were
initiated. As a consequence, complete hinges could not develop. However,
Model (1977) also considers rather large cracked areas that would corre-
spond with smeared crack models in FE models.

Fig. 3-15. Minimum moments in springing hinges according to Ril 805

In contrast, historical and current research has shown that historical


masonry arch bridges under ultimate loads do not show large cracked ar-
eas, but do show great single cracks in regions of maximum loading. In
this region, usually much higher rotations occur than linear-elastic mod-
els show. Figure 3-16 shows test results from Jagfeld and Barthel (2004).
Brencich and Gambarotta (2005) also found such hinges on a bridge over
the Scrivia in Alessandria/Italy.
132 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-16. Development of hinges in masonry according to Jagfeld and Barthel


(2004)

This observation is the reason for the introduction of hinges in arch


beam models even if no hinges have been designed and built. Figure 3-17
visualizes this concept. The plasticity theory application for masonry
arches was originally introduced by Kooharian (1952) and Heyman
(1966). An excellent overview of the development of arch models can be
found in Gilbert (2007).
Both methods, the search of an equilibrium inside the arch as static
modelling and the consideration of the kinematic chains as kinematic crite-
ria, are used for the load evaluation process of arch bridges. They can be
seen as upper and lower bound solutions (Fig. 3-18).

Fig. 3-17. Application of plasticity theory for masonry arch bridges (Heyman
1966, Kooharian 1952)
3.3 Beam Models 133

Fig. 3-18. Relationship between upper- and lower-bound solutions (Gilbert 2007)

The MAFEA code in the UIC codes is using nonlinear beam elements,
permitting the development of hinges. Such elements have also been used
in the program Sofistik by Bothe et al. (2004), Herrbruch et al. (2005), and
Mildner (1996). The program STATRA has been used by Möller et al.
(2002). Highly sophisticated programs for the computation of stone arch
bridges are RING (LimitState Ltd 2008) and Archie-M (Harvey 2008).

3.3.2 Compound Beam Models

An introduction into the theory and computation of compound beam cross


sections can be found in Hannawald (2006). In general, for the considera-
tion of compound cross sections, a distinction between solid joints and
sliding joints has to be undertaken. If relative sliding inside joints is prohi-
bited, this is called a solid joint. The properties of this compound cross
section are based on geometrical and stiffness properties of single cross
sections. For example, this model can be used for arch bridges by simply
increasing the arch cross section by a certain factor for the partial load
transfer into the backfill. The drawback of this simple model is the fact
that the thickness of the backfill may vary in the length of the arch and
therefore the factor has to be altered over the arch length.
In the following paragraphs, the computation of such a factor will be
shown for solid joints in terms of an effective cross section. Such formulae
have found wide application in structural wood design.
The position a of the line of thrust in such a compound cross section
with solid functions can be computed as
134 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

1 ( EA)2 ⋅ ( h1 + h2 ) (3-58)
a= ⋅ ,
2 ∑ ( EA)i
where E1 and E2 are Young’s modulus for the arch and the backfill, A is
the cross-sectional area, h are the corresponding heights, and the variable a
is shown in Fig. 3-19. If the arch and the backfill have the same height,
then the formula becomes
E2 (3-59)
a = h1 ⋅ .
E1 + E2

Fig. 3-19. Variables at the compound cross section

The effective bending stiffness of the compound cross section becomes


( EI )eff = ∑ (( EI )i + ( EA)i ⋅ a2 ) (3-60)

b ⋅ h13 (3-61)
( EI )eff = ( E1 + E2 ) ⋅ + b ⋅ h1 ⋅ ( E1 ⋅ h12 + E2 ⋅ a 2 ) ,
12
where I is the bending stiffness of the single cross section and b is the
width according to Fig. 3-19.
However, if sliding occurs in the joint, the contribution of the backfill to
the load bearing will decrease compared to the solid joint. Such a sliding is
more probable than a solid joint and depends on many factors, such as the
shape of the extrados and material properties of the backfill. The sliding
can be covered in a simplified way by the consideration of a sliding
factor γ. This factor can be computed according to
3.3 Beam Models 135

1 (3-62)
γ=
1 + k1

π ⋅ ( EA)2 ⋅ s1 (3-63)
k1 =
K1 ⋅ l 2

with (EA)2 as the product of Young’s modulus and the cross section size
for cross section 2, which is connected to cross section 1
• K1/s1 as stiffness of the joint between cross sections 1 and 2
• s1 as distance of dowels between cross sections 1 and 2
• l as distance of the moment zero point (l is the span for single-span
beams, 0,8 × li for continuous beams, 2 × lk for cantilevers)
The position of the line of thrust by the same height for the arch and the
backfill and the consideration of the sliding factor becomes
γ ⋅ E2 (3-64)
a = h1 ⋅ .
E1 + γ ⋅ E2
The effective bending stiffness also depends on the sliding factor:
b ⋅ h13 (3-65)
( EI )eff = ( E1 + E2 ) ⋅ + b ⋅ h1 ⋅ ( E1 ⋅ a 2 + γ ⋅ E2 ⋅ ( h2 − a )2 ) .
12
The effective normal force stiffness is computed as
( EA)eff = E1 ⋅ A1 + γ ⋅ E 2 ⋅ A2 . (3-66)

The line of thrust is changing over the length of the arch due to the con-
sideration of the backfill (Fig. 3-20). It can even come out of the arch.
These results fit very well with results by Gocht (1978).
136 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-20. Resulting line of thrust by consideration of the backfill according to


Becke (2005)

The resulting forces inside the arch can be computed as


( EA)1 ( EA)1 ⋅ a E1 ( EA)1 ⋅ a (3-67)
N1 = N ⋅ +γ ⋅M⋅ =N⋅ +γ ⋅M⋅
∑ ( EA)i ( EI )eff E1 + E2 ( EI )eff

( EI )1 (3-68)
M1 = M ⋅ .
( EI )eff
The effects of the backfill on the load-bearing behaviour of arches by
using beam models can be done either by applying springs and additional
beams for the backfill or by the introduction of compound cross sections as
shown here. A further model is the application of the finite element
method. This technique not only permits the consideration of the backfill
and possible sliding inside the joints but also allows a general considera-
tion of material and geometry nonlinear behaviour. Therefore, in contrast
to linear-elastic beam models, wherein hinges chosen in advance represent ar-
eas of nonlinear behaviour, this will be done automatically in finite ele-
ment models.

3.4 Finite Element Method (FEM)

Besides the application of simple beam elements for the modelling of arch
bridges, finite element models of masonry and concrete arch bridges have
become more and more popular. The first finite element analysis of arch
bridges was probably carried out by Towler (1985) and Crisfield (1985).
3.4 Finite Element Method (FEM) 137

Nowadays, an increasing number of professional finite element pro-


grams include modules for realistic material description of masonry and
are used for the simulation of arch bridges. Choo et al. (1991), Dialer
(1991), Loo (1995), Mojsilović (1995), Lourenço (1996), Baker (1997),
Seim and Schweizerhof (1997), Seim (1998), Parikh and Patwardhan
(1999), Huster (2000), Schlegel and Rautenstrauch (2000), Schlegel et al.
(2003), Schlegel (2004), Schlegel and Will (2007), and Schlegel (2008)
have supported this development by developing such realistic material
models for FE programs. Others have simply used already included mate-
rial description modules (Drucker-Prager, Willam Warnke 1974). Such
modules in ANSYS has been used, for example, by Weigert (1996), Wed-
ler (1997), Jagfeld (1998), Melbourne and Tao (1998), Trautz (1998),
Frunzio and Monaco (1998), Fanning and Boothby (2001), Fanning et al.
(2001), Hänel and Reintjes (2001), Mildner and Mildner (2001), Reintjes
(2002), Droese and Bodendiek (2002), Proske (2003), Brencich et al.
(2002), Purtak (2001, 2004), Witzany and Jäger (2005), Purtak et al. (2007),
and Bién et al. (2008). The program ATENA has been used by Schuere-
mans (2001), Cervenka (2004), and Slowik et al. (2005). Healey and
Counsell (1998), Brencich and Colla (2002), Brencich and de Francesco
(2004), and LUSAS (2005) have used the LUSAS program. Stavrouli and
Stavroulakis (2003) and Mura et al. (2003) used the program MARC for the
investigation of historical arch bridges. Rots and van Zijl (2005) have used
DIANA. The program SAP 2000 was used by Toker and Ünay (2004) and
Prader et al. (2008) and the program Strand7 FE analysis was employed by
Ford et al. (2003).
Further examples of finite element models of arch bridges can be found
in Aoki et al. (2004), Aoki and Sabia (2003), Aoki and Sato (2003),
Orlando et al. (2003), Cavicchi and Gambarotta (2006), Drosopoulos et al.
(2007), and Knoblauch et al. (2008). An extension of finite element mod-
els is mentioned by Fuhlrott (2004). The requirement of extensive model-
ling of the foundation and the ground is required by Rombach (2007). And
finally, some authors see general limitations in the application of finite
element models for masonry, such as Chiostrini et al. (1989) and Dialer
(2002).
In general, masonry requires material nonlinear modelling and therefore
finite element models have to adapt to this (Figs. 3-21 to 3-24).
138 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-21. Failure surface of masonry based on tests according to Page (1983)

Fig. 3-22. Failure surfaces of masonry according to Seim (1998) and Lourenço
(1996)
3.4 Finite Element Method (FEM) 139

Fig. 3-23. Failure surface of masonry according to Schlegel (2004)

Fig. 3-24. Stress-strain behaviour of masonry for tension, shear and compression
according to Schlegel (2004)

A summary of different computation strategies is given by Lourenço


(2002), including DEM. However, and that is quite important, the more
complicated the simulation techniques become, the higher a numerical
safety factor gets, as Table 3-19 shows. This increased safety factor re-
flects the increasing uncertainty of an increasing number of input vari-
ables.

Table 3-19. Safety factors for different computation strategies (Lourenço 2002)
Approach/analysis type Safety factor
Allowable stress (fta = 0.2 MPa) 0.31
Kinematic limit analysis 1.8
Geometric safety factor 1.2
Physical nonlinear and no tensile strength 1.8
Physical and geometrical nonlinear and no tensile strength 1.7
Physical nonlinear and tensile strength of 0.2 MPa 2.5
Physical and geometrical nonlinear and tensile strength of 0.2 MPa 2.5
140 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

3.5 Discrete Element Method (DEM)

The finite element method can show convergence problems especially


under great cracks. Then, the advantage of finite element method by
assuming homogenous material properties over certain space regions
cannot hold anymore. An alternative is the application of the discrete
element method (DEM)—sometimes called distinct element method.
In general, the DEM is a procedure for the simulation of movements of
a limited number of bodies with any shape subject to certain interactions.
Single bodies can freely move in space, however, contacts between bodies
are considered. Both static and kinematic boundary conditions are fulfilled.
The static boundaries consider the following in detail:
• Material behaviour functions
• Contact behaviour functions
• External field conditions (Neuberg 2002)
The material behaviour functions describe the behaviour of the single
bodies under external forces. The contract behaviour functions describe the
behaviour of single bodies during interaction and external fields describe
forces such as gravitation that act on all single bodies.
Cinematic conditions are the movement equations of Newton’s second
law and the extension to rotation. Furthermore, for quasistatic solutions,
numerical damping is required.
The overall computation includes the alternate computation of the static
and cinematic relationships over a discrete time. The discrete time also al-
lows the change of the external field forces if required (Neuberg 2002).
Early applications of DEM were done by Cundall (1971) and Cundall
and Strack (1979). Since then, DEM has found wide application in the com-
putation of masonry elements and masonry arch bridges. For example,
Chiostrini et al. (1989), Mamaghani et al. (1999), Bićanić et al. (2002),
Dialer (2002), and Keip and Konietzky (2005) and Lemos (2006) have
used DEM for masonry structures in general.
Maunder (1993), Lemos (1995), Owen et al. (1998), Roberti and Calvetti
(1998), Thavalingam et al. (2001), Brookes and Collings (2003), Bićanić
et al. (2003), Jackson (2004), Schlegel (2004) and Rouxinol et al. (2007)
have used DEM for historical masonry arch bridge computation.
Although DEM is a very general and robust method, the problem for
practical application is still an extensive computation time and a great mul-
titude of different material parameters that are often unknown or difficult
to measure on the structure.
3.6 Comparison of Testing and Modelling 141

3.6 Comparison of Testing and Modelling

3.6.1 Load Tests on Arches

The quality of numerical models requires the comparison with observed


data—in this case, the comparison with the investigated ultimate load-
bearing behaviour of real arches. Therefore, for more than a century, tests
on arch bridges were carried out.
First test reports were published by the Austrian engineer and architec-
ture association in 1895. The testing of reinforced and non-reinforced con-
crete arches with a maximum span of 23 m has been described (Huerta
2001). In Germany, the first tests were carried out in 1908 on a three-hinge
road vault with tamped concrete. The bridge was originally constructed in
1902 for an industry exhibition in Düsseldorf. The bridge was designed for
2
a streamroller with 230 kN, and for a crown with 4 kN/m . The vault
reached a span of 28 m. The rise was 2 m. The thickness of the arch
reached 0.75 m at the springing, 0.85 m in the quarter points, and 0.65 m at
the crown. The backfill of the arch was removed. Unfortunately, the
maximum load of the test equipment of 4,230 kN was reached without
failure. Therefore, the maximum load was applied for two days continu-
ously; however, the bridge did not fail. The ratio between observed and
computed ultimate load was more than 18.
In 1935, tests on arch bridges were carried out in the United States
(Jäger 1935). In 1936, Pippard and colleagues carried out tests on arch
bridge models. They discovered that arches develop hinges during failure
and therefore simple linear elastic computations are insufficient for ulti-
mate load-bearing assessment since they do not consider the development
of such hinges. Pippard and Chitty therefore developed a technique called
“instability analysis.” This method showed great affinity with the plastic
methods introduced by Heyman (Das 1995).
At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, about ten arch
bridges were tested in the United Kingdom (eight stone arch bridges and
two models) (Das 1995, BE 16/97). Some of the tests were carried out in
the Bolton Laboratory. These tests, and additional tests ordered by the
Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL, later TRL), resulted in
considerable amount of material for recomputation of the ultimate load of
the bridges. This is especially true for the tests on real arch bridges.
Most of the bridges collapsed by the development of four-hinge mecha-
nisms. Only a minority failed by buckling or exceeding the masonry
142 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

compression strength. A summary of some parameters of the tested bridges


is shown in Table 3-20.
In connection with the tests, the investigation by Royles and Hendry
(1991) should be mentioned. They have classified the tested arches as
follows:
• Compression arch alone
• Compression arch with backfill
• Compression arch with backfill and backup masonry
• Compression arch with backfill, backup masonry and spandrel walls
The tests clearly showed some positive effects of additional structural
elements. For example, load distribution caused by the backfill increased
the load bearing and also backup masonry, stiffer backfill, and stiffer
spandrel walls increased the load capacity of the arches between factor 2
and factor 12 in comparison to the arch only (Royles and Hendry 1991).

Table 3-20. Parameters of the tested bridges (BE 16 1997, RING 2005)
Bridge Span in m Rise in m Arch thickness Width in m Skewness in
in mm degrees
Bridgemil 18.30 2.85 711 8.3 0
Bargower 10.36 5.18 588 8.68 16
Preston 5.18 1.64 360 8.7 17
Prestwood 6.55 1.43 220 3.6 0
Torksey 4.90 1.15 343 7.8 0
Shinafoot 6.16 1.19 542 7.03 0
Strathmashie 9.42 2.99 600 5.81 0
Barlae 9.86 1.69 450 9.8 29
Bundee 4.00 2.00 250 6.0 0
Bolton 6.00 1.00 220 6.0 0

In 1989, the German railway in Schauenstein (Germany) tested the load


capacity of a single track natural stone arch bridge with tamped concrete.
The tests are intensively presented in Weber (1999) and are also mentioned
in Hoch and Schmitt (1999). The bridge was constructed in 1919 with a
span of 14.0 m and a pier height of 4.20 m. The width of the vault reached
3.65 m. The spandrel walls reached a height of 0.83 m. The arch shape fol-
lowed a basket arch with either three or five circles. The railway line was
closed in 1976 (Weber 1999).
A single load was applied on the railway slab at a quarter point using a
reinforced concrete traverse. The bridge reached an ultimate load of
3,840 kN. At that load, the test had to be stopped since the ultimate load
of the ground anchors used for the anchoring of the concrete traverse had
reached the limit. However, the results showed that the arch overleaped
3.6 Comparison of Testing and Modelling 143

the development of a three-hinge stadium and went directly into a four-


hinge mechanism. The arch showed a horizontal deformation of 4.7 mm
and a vertical deformation of 9.0 mm at the load introduction point. At the
unloaded quarter point, the arch moved upwards about 0.1 mm and hori-
zontally by 3.0 mm. It should be mentioned that at up to 30% of the ulti-
mate load the spandrel walls continued to function together with the arch
and only afterwards partly separated. The rail track also contributed to the
load resistance with a normal force of about 140 kN (Weber 1999).
After the first test, the bridge was partly disassembled: the rail track and
the backfill were cleared. Until a load of 3,450 kN, the development of a
four-hinge mechanism was completed. However, then the load was re-
duced again and the arch returned to the original shape. All failure joints
closed. A further reloading of up to 2,398 kN caused the collapse of the
bridge (Weber 1999).
Since then, many tests have been carried out and the following example
should not be understood as a complete list. Roca and Molins (2004) pre-
sented tests on two bridges with a span of 3.2 m and a rise of 0.65 and
1.6 m, respectively. The bridges were loaded in the quarter points. Details
about the bridges are given in Table 3-21. The bridges failed under 60 and
95 kN, respectively, due to the development of a four-hinge mechanism.
Two hinges already developed at early loading states—one directly under
the load and the other one at the close springing. At 60–75% of the ulti-
mate load, the spandrel wall separated from the arch. The third hinge de-
veloped at 80–90% of the ultimate load, and finally the development of the
fourth hinge at the crown yielded to the collapse. The arch with the lower
rise showed a maximum vertical deformation at the crown of 4.5 cm and
the second arch reached about 2.0 cm.
Vermeltfoort (2001) reports about tests on a masonry arch bridge with-
out backfill in the Netherlands. In the last years Purtak et al. (2007) have
carried out tests at the University of Technology in Dresden, Germany.

Table 3-21. Properties of the bridges tested by Roca and Molins (2004)
Property Bridge c Bridge d
Span 3.20 m 3.20 m
Rise 0.65 m 1.60 m
Overall length 5.20 m 5.20 m
Overall height 0.95 m 2.15 m
Width 1.00 m 1.00 m
Arch thickness 0.14 m 0.14 m
Thickness spandrel wall 0.14 m 0.14 m
Height of backfill at crown 0.10 m 0.10 m
Maximum height of backfill 0.78 m 1.17 m
144 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Property Bridge c Bridge d


Number of tendons for horizontal restrains 6 8
Loading at ¼ Point ¼ Point
Compression strength of stones (longitudinal) 56.8 MPa 56.8 MPa
Young’s modulus of the stone (longitudinal) 12.750 MPa 12.750 MPa
Compression strength of stones (transversal) 51.0 MPa 51.0 MPa
Young’s modulus of the stone (transversal) 10.450 MPa 10.450 MPa
Mortar compression strength (40 × 40 × 80 mm) 8.34 MPa 8.34 MPa
Mortar flexural bending strength (40 × 40 × 160 mm) 2.68 MPa 2.68 MPa
Young’s modulus of the mortar 780 MPa 780 Mpa
Friction coefficient of joint arch backfill 0.33–0.36 0.33–0.36
Compression strength of masonry 21.0 14.0
Density backfill 18 kN/m3 18 kN/m3

3.6.2 Comparison Results

As already mentioned, such tests enable us to assess the performance of


computer models of arch bridges. Such comparisons are visualized in
Fig. 3-25 and Table 3-22. However, under normal conditions, the engineer
lacks data of real tests. Therefore, usually other programs are used to esti-
mate the performance of our programs or models. For example, the FILEV
method introduced earlier was tested with results from the program RING.
The results were quite impressive, as shown in Table 3-23 and Fig. 3-26.
3.6 Comparison of Testing and Modelling 145

Fig. 3-25. Comparison of experimental and numerical ultimate load-bearing inves-


tigations (B 16 1997, RING 2005)
146 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Table 3-22. Comparison of experimental and numerical ultimate load-bearing


investigations (B 16 1997, RING 2005)
Experimental Computed ultimate load using the program
ultimate load CTAP ARCHIE MINIPOINT ARCH MAFEA
Bridgemill 310 183 278 245 217 219
Bargower 560 601 336 350 411 403
Preston 210 184 130 181 73 95
Prestwood 22 0 2 7 6 8
Torksey 108 103 91 124 69 91
Shinafoot 250 268 204 295 205 257
Dundee 104 90 23 123 67 96
Bolton 117 41 39 124 43 52
Strathmashie 132 118 142 112 109 120
Barlae 290 232 216 320 182 165

Fig. 3-26. Comparison of the numerical ultimate load-bearing investigation using


FILEV and RING software (Martín-Caro and Martínez 2004)

Table 3-23. Comparison of the numerical ultimate load-bearing investigation us-


ing FILEV and RING software (Martín-Caro and Martínez 2004)
Arch Ultimate load Ultimate load Ratio
Span Rise thickness Coverage at according to according to
Nr. in m in m in m crown in m FILEV in kN RING in kN
1 5.0 2.50 0.500 0.5 1,541 1,525 1.0105
2 5.0 1.25 0.500 0.5 1,726 2,135 0.8084
3 7.5 3.75 0.750 0.5 2,376 2,438 0.9746
4 7.5 1.88 0.750 0.5 2,662 3,175 0.8384
5 7.5 3.75 0.675 0.5 1,456 1,580 0.9215
3.6 Comparison of Testing and Modelling 147

Arch Ultimate load Ultimate load Ratio


Span Rise thickness Coverage at according to according to
Nr. in m in m in m crown in m FILEV in kN RING in kN
6 7.5 1.88 0.675 0.5 1,630 2,010 0.8109
7 10.0 5.00 0.700 0.5 1,165 1,393 0.8363
8 12.5 2.50 0.700 0.5 1,305 1,400 0.9321
9 12.5 6.25 0.750 0.5 1,312 1,405 0.9338
10 12.5 2.50 0.750 0.5 1,666 1,790 0.9307
11 12.5 6.25 0.875 0.5 1,841 1,798 1.0239
12 12.5 2.50 0.875 0.5 2,338 2,640 0.8856
13 15.0 7.50 0.900 0.5 1,928 1,890 1.0201
14 15.0 3.00 0.900 0.5 2,449 2,390 1.0247
15 18.0 9.00 0.900 0.5 1,750 1,750 1.0000
16 18.0 3.60 0.900 0.5 2,046 2,000 1.0230
17 20.0 10.00 1.000 0.5 1,887 1,790 1.0542
18 20.0 4.00 1.000 0.5 2,397 2,475 0.9685

The program ARCHIE was originally developed in 1983 at the Univer-


sity of Dundee. It heavily relates to works by Heyman. However, addition-
ally earth pressure can be included in the computation. The program first
investigates the location of the hinges in the arch under live and dead load.
Then the line of thrust is computed. ARCHIE then gives a lower limit of
the load-bearing capacity. The program did not give deformations, multi-
layered arches could not be considered, the failure criterion was always the
development of a four-hinge mechanism, multi-span arches could not be
investigated, and concrete backfill and vaults also could not be modelled
(Brookes and Collings 2003).
In 1999, the program ARCHIE-M was presented by Obvis Ltd in the
United Kingdom. The program first showed only slight differences from the
ARCHIE, such as the consideration of ground pressure and the distribution
of single loads in longitudinal direction (Brookes and Collings 2003). How-
ever, since then, the program has been permanently extended and updated. A
demo version can be downloaded at Harvey (2008) or at Obvis Ltd (2006).
The program RING was originally developed during the 1990s at the
Bolton Institute and the University of Sheffield. In 2007, the second
edition was released. It considers the development of a mechanism, but
shear failure can also be considered. Furthermore, some special conditions
can be considered, such as multi-ring arches. The original version could
not consider concrete backfill and vaults. Furthermore, no deformation was
given and buckling was not considered (Brookes and Collings 2003). A
trial version of RING 1.5 can be downloaded at the University of Sheffield
(2008), and a demo version of RING 2.0 at LimitState Ltd (2008).
The Italian program SAV (Stabilita`di Archie Volte in Matura) has been
introduced by AEDES (2008). Another Italian program is called ARCO
148 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

(Analysis of Masonry Arch and Vaults) and it can be downloaded under


Gelfi (2006). Smars (2006) has developed the program Calipous for the
computation of gothic vaults and structures of masonry arches in Belgium.
The German railway often uses the program GETRA for the load
estimation of historical railway arch bridges (Ludwig 2000), and the Saxon
road departments often use Excel sheets developed by Dibeh et al. (1997)
based on linear-elastic arch computation using the theory of Strassner. Also,
the consultant company Pauser has developed a program (Heinlein 2008,
Pauser 2007). Teaching programs for students regarding the mechanisms of
arches were developed by Greenwold et al. (2008) during the Active Statics
project and by Block (2006).

3.7 Transverse Direction (Effective Width)

The presented beam models have not considered the transverse action of
loads inside the arch bridges: they simply considered only longitudinal ef-
fects. However, the consideration of transversal effects may decrease the
load on the arch and offer an opportunity to permit higher traffic loads on
arch bridges. Therefore, the load spreading in transverse direction is usu-
ally considered in terms of effective width, as shown in Fig. 3-27.

Fig. 3-27. Effective width based on the height of backfill and height of the arch

The spreading angle of the load can be taken from several codes of prac-
tice or recommendations. For example,
• For gravel or sand, an angle of 30° is used according to the DIN 1055-1
• For concrete or masonry, 45° is assumed by Haser and Kaschner (1994)
• For masonry, about 30° is assumed according to DIN 1052-1 (1996)
3.7 Transverse Direction (Effective Width) 149

However, these differences are negligible for usual covering heights.


Whereas the current German codes (DIN 1075 or DIN-report 101) for road
bridges lack information about the effective width, former codes included
some recommendations, such as
• TGL 12999 (3/1977) “Re-computation of existing bridges”
• SBA-regulation 169/89 (9/1989) “Bridges for traffic – recomputation of
road traffic bridge built of concrete and masonry”
Based on these former recommendations Haser and Kaschner (1994) give,
the following rules:
One-lane road Two-lane road
bm = 4 m bm = 7 m
bm = 0.25× l
bm ≤ b
However, the width must not be wider than the bridge.
For railway bridges, the Ril 804 gives a spreading function. The general
assumption for such a spreading is the coverage height of bridges. Bridges
are considered as covered, if the coverage is greater than 60 cm. Figure
3-28 shows an example of a railway bridge with and without concrete
plate. As shown in Fig. 3-28, the effective width alters with the length of
the arch. For railway bridges, therefore, the Ril 804/805 permits the com-
putation of a middle effective width bm
bc + bs (3-69)
bm =
2
with bc as the effective width at crown and bs as the effective width at
springing.
However, if the force spreading exceeds the bridge width, the force cre-
ates a horizontal loading on the spandrel walls as shown in Fig. 3-29.
150 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-28. Example of load spreading in an arch bridge. In the top subfigure, the
bridge is shown with a railway plate, and in the subfigure in the middle and at the
bottom, the bridge is in the original state at the crown and at the springing
3.7 Transverse Direction (Effective Width) 151

Fig. 3-29. If the load spreading reaches the spandrel wall, the load can cause hori-
zontal pressure on the spandrel wall as shown in this example

For more detailed investigations of the load spreading, further advanced


models can be used such as the models by Harvey (2006) or by the use of
FEM as shown by Nautiyal (1993) and Frenzel (2004). Figure 3-30 shows
the different load-spreading models by Harvey, whereas Fig. 3-31 shows
the results from a FEM computation in terms of vertical stresses inside an
arch bridge caused by traffic load.

Fig. 3-30. Force flow models in longitudinal and transversal direction according to
Harvey (2006)
152 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Fig. 3-31. Vertical stress at the ¼ point of the arch according to Frenzel (2004)

References

AEDES (2008) SAV (Stabilita`di Archie Volte in Matura) http://www.aedes.it/


Aita D, Foce F, Barsotti R & Bennati S (2007) Collapse of masonry arches in
Romanesque and Gothic constructions. Proceedings of the Arch`07 – 5th In-
ternational Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenco, DV Oliveira & A Por-
tela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 625–632
Aoki T & Sabia D (2003) Collapse Analysis of Masonry Arch Bridges, Proceed-
ings of the 9th International Conference on Civil and Structural Engineering
Computing, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands, 2–4, September 2003, BHV
Topping (Ed), Civil Comp Press, Stirling, United Kingdom, 2003, pp 1–14
(CD-ROM)
Aoki T & Sato T (2003) Application of Bott-Duffin Inverse to Static and Dynamic
Analysis of Masonry Structures, Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance
of Heritage Architecture VIII, pp 277–286
Aoki T, Komiyama D, Sabia D & Rivella R (2004) Theoretical and Experimental
Dynamic Analysis of Rakanji Stone Arch Bridge, Honyabakei, Oita, Japan,
Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control
MOvIC’04, St. Louis, 8.–11. August, 2004, pp 1–9 (CD-ROM)
Audenaert A, Peremans H & Reniers G (2007) Journal of Engineering Mathemat-
ics, 59, pp 323–336
B 16 (1997) Comparison of Masonry Arch Bridge Assessment Methods. Annex E,
Volume 3, Section 4, Part 4, http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/
document/deps/ha/dmrb/vol3/sect4/ba1697h.pdf, 2005
Baker M (1997) FE analysis of Masonry and Application to masonry Arch
Bridges. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University
BE 16/97 (2005) Comparison of masonry arch bridge assessment methods. Annex
E, Volume 3, Section 4, Part 4, BE 16/97, www.archive2.official-documents.
co.uk/document/deps/ha/dmrb/vol3/sect4/ba1697h.pdf
References 153

Becke A (2005) Entwicklung eines ingenieurmäßigen Modells zur


Berücksichtigung der Mitwirkung der Hinterfüllung bei historischen
Natursteinbogenbrücken. Diplomarbeit Technische Universität Dresden
Bićanić N, Stirling C & Pearce CJ (2002) Discontinuous Modelling of Structural
Masonry. Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics, HA Mang, FG
Rammerstorfer & J Eberhardsteiner (Eds), July 7–12 2002, Vienna, Austria
Bićanić N, Stirling C & Pearce CJ (2003) Discontinuous modelling of masonry
bridges. Computational Mechanics, 31 (1–2), May 2003, pp 60–68
Bién J, Kamiński T & Trela C (2008) Numerical analysis of old masonry bridges
supported by field tests. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health
Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 2384–2391
Bienert G (1959–60) Aufgaben der Modellstatik bei der Konstruktion und
Unterhaltung der Verkehrsbauwerke. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der
Hochschule für Verkehrswesen „Friedrich List“ Dresden, 1959/60, Heft 1
Bienert G, Sauer & Schmidt (1960–62) Beitrag zur Ermittlung von Tragreserven
in massiven Brückengewölben. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule
für Verkehrswesen “Friedrich List” Dresden, 1960/61, Heft 2 und 9, 1961/62,
Heft 1
Block P (2006) InteractiveTHRUST.
http://web.mit.edu/masonry/interactiveThrust/examples.html
Bothe E, Henning J, Curbach M, Bösche T & Proske D (2004) Nichtlineare
Berechnung alter Bogenbrücken auf der Grundlage neuer Vorschriften. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 99, Heft 4, pp 289–294
Braune W (1980) Über die Tragwirkung von Gewölbebrücken mit
längsgegliederten massiven Aufbauten. Die Bautechnik, 57 (2), pp 37–45 and
(3), pp 93–100
Brencich A & Colla C (2002) The influence of construction technology on the
mechanics of masonry railway bridges, Railway Engineering 2002, 5th Inter-
national Conference, 3–4 July 2002, London
Brencich A & de Francesco U (2004) Assessment of Multispan Masonry Arch
Bridges: Simplified Approach. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, Novem-
ber/December 2004, pp 582–590
Brencich A & Gambarotta L (2005) Mechanical response of solid clay brickwork
under eccentric loading. Part I. Unreinforced masonry. Materials and Struc-
tures, 38(2), pp 257–266
Brencich A, Corradi C, Gambarotta G, Mantegazza G & Strerp E (2002) Com-
pressive Strength of Solid Clay Brick Masonry under Eccentric Loading.
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Genoa, Italy
Brencich A, De Francesco U, Gambarotta L (2001) Elastic no tensile resistant –
plastic analysis of masonry arch bridges as an extension of castigliano’s
method. 9th Canadian masonry symposium
Brookes C & Collings M (2003) ARCHTEC – Verification of Structural Analysis.
Gifford and Partners Document No: B1660A/V10/R03
Brühwiler E (2008) Rational approach for the management of medium size bridge
stock. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and In-
154 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

formatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London,
pp 2642–2649
Busch P & Zumpe G (1995) Tragfähigkeit, Tragsicherheit und Tragreserven von
Bogenbrücken. 5. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen,
Technische Universität Dresden, pp 153–169
Cavicchi A & Gambarotta L (2004) Upper bound limit analysis of multispan ma-
sonry bridges including arch-fill interaction. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in
Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds),
CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 302–311
Cavicchi A & Gambarotta L (2005) Collapse analysis of masonry bridges taking
into account arch-fill interaction. Engineering Structures, 27, pp 605–615
Cavicchi A & Gambarotta L (2006) Two-dimensional finite element upper bound
limit analysis of masonry bridges. Computers & Structures, 84, pp 2316–2328
Cavicchi A & Gambarotta L (2007) Load carrying capacity of masonry bridges:
numerical evaluation of the influence of fill and spandrels. Proceedings of the
Arch`07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenco, DV
Oliveira & A Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 609–616
Cervenka V (2004) Cervenka-Consulting: http://www.cervenka.cz
Chiostrini S, Foraboschi P & Sorace S (1989) Problems connected with the ar-
rangement of a non-linear finite element method to the analysis of masonry
structures. Structural Repair and Maintenance of Historical Buildings. Com-
putational Mechanics Publications Birkhäuser
Choo BS, Coutie MG & Gong NG (1991) Finite-element analysis of masonry arch
bridges using tapered elements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers, Part 2, December 1991, pp 755–770
Corradi M (1998) Empirical methods for the construction of masonry arch bridges
in the 19th century. Arch Bridges: history, analysis, assessment, maintenance
and repair. Proceedings of the second international arch bridge conference,
Edr A. Sinopoli, Venice 6–9 October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 25–36
Corradi M & Filemio V (2004) A brief comparison between mechanical aspects
and construction of arch bridges during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries.
Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construc-
tion, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 79–86
COST-345 (2004) European Commission Directorate General Transport and En-
ergy: COST 345 – Procedures Required for the Assessment of Highway
Structures: Numerical Techniques for Safety and Serviceability Assessment –
Report of Working Groups 4 and 5
Craemer H (1943) Die “erzwungene Drucklinie” als Ausdruck der versteifenden
Wirkung der Übermauerung von Gewölben. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Heft
9/10
Crisfield M A (1985) Finite Element and Mechanism Methods for the Analysis of
Masonry and Brickwork Arches. Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
London
Cundall PA & Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular as-
semblies. Géotechnique, 29, pp 47–65
References 155

Cundall PA (1971) A computer model for simulating progressive large scale


movements in blocky rock systems. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the
International Society of Rock Mechanics. Vol. 1, Paper II-8, Nancy, France
Das PC (1995) The Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges. The Aesthetics of Load
bearing Masonry Arch Bridges. Arch Bridges, C. Melbourne (Ed), Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton, Thomas
Telford, London, pp 21–27
Dialer C (1991) Bruch- und Verformungsverhalten von schubbeanspruchten
Mauerwerksscheiben. Mauerwerkskalender 1992, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Dialer C (2002) Ausgewählte Schäden und Schäden an Instandsetzungen von
Massivbauwerken. Massivbau 2002, Forschung, Entwicklungen und
Anwendungen. Hrsg. Konrad Zilch, Technische Universität München,
pp 218–237
Diamantidis D (2001) Assessment of Existing Structures, Joint Committee of
Structural Safety JCSS, Rilem Publications S.A.R.L.: The publishing Com-
pany of Rilem, Volume 159
Dibeh T, Pfeifer T & Hein S (1997) Statische Berechnung von Bogenbrücken &
Statische Berechnung von Natursteinbogenbrücken. Saxon institute for road
construction, Rochlitz
Dischinger F (1949) Massivbau. Taschenbuch Bauingenieure. F Schleicher (Ed),
Reprint 1949, Springer Verlag Berlin, 1943
DR (1985) Deutsche Reichsbahn: Richtlinie Einbau von Fahrbahnwannen. year
uncertain
Droese S & Bodendiek P (2002) Die Unterfangung des Bahrmühlenviaduktes,
Rechnerischer Nachweis des Viaduktes für Lasten und die Zwangseinwirkung
aus dem Bauvorgang. Die Bautechnik 79, pp 455–463
Drosopoulos GA, Stavroulakis GE & Massalas CV (2007) FRP reinforcement of
stone arch bridges: Unilateral contact models and limit analysis. Composites:
Part B 38, pp 144–151
Enevoldsen I (2008) Practical implementation of probability based assessment
methods for bridges. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Moni-
toring and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 83–104
Fain JS (1953) Beispiele zur Berechnung von Stein- und Bogenbrücken. VEB
Verlag Technik, Berlin
Falter H (1998) Untersuchung historischer Wölbkonstruktionen – Auswirkungen der
Herstellung und des Baumaterials. Dissertation an der Universität Stuttgart
Fanning PJ & Boothby TE (2001) Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale
testing of stone arch bridges. Computers and Structures, 79, pp 2645–2662
Fanning PJ, Boothby TE & Roberts BJ (2001) Longitudinal and transverse effects
in masonry arch assessment. Construction and Building Materials, 15,
pp 51–60
Fischer U (1940–41) Ausnutzung des Zusammenwirkens von Bogen und Aufbau.
Internationaler Verein für Brücken- und Hochbau, Abhandlung Band 61
Fischer U (1942) Die Mitwirkung des Aufbaus massiver Bogenbrücken. Beton
und Eisen, 37. Jahrgang, Heft 19, pp 310–315
156 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Ford TE, Augarde CE & Tuxford SS (2003) Modelling masonry arch bridges us-
ing commercial finite element software, 9th International Conference on Civil
and Structural Engineering Computing, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands,
2–4 September 2003
Frenzel M (2004) Untersuchung zur Quertragfähigkeit von Bogenbrücken aus
Natursteinmauerwerk. Diplomarbeit Technische Universität Dresden
Frunzio G & Monaco M (1998) An approach to the structural model for masonry
arch bridges: Pont Saint Martin as a case study. Arch Bridges: History, Analy-
sis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the Second Interna-
tional Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998,
Balkema Rotterdam, pp 231–240
Fuhlrott A (2004) Grundlagen der Extended Finite Elemente Methode (X-FEM).
Studienarbeit am Institut für Strukturmechanik, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen,
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Gelfi P (2006) Arco.exe http://dicata.ing.unibs.it/gelfi/arco.htm
Gilbert M (2007) Limit analysis applied to masonry arch bridges: state-of-the-art
and recent developments. Proceedings of the Arch`07 – 5th International Con-
ference on Arch Bridges. PB Lourenco, DV Oliveira & A Portela (Eds), 12–
14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 13–28
Gilbrin G (1913) Störungen des normalen Zustandes in Brückengewölben.
Dissertation an der damaligen Kgl. TH zu München, Verlag Ernst und Sohn,
Berlin 1913
Gocht R (1978) Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten rekonstruierter Eisenbahnge-
wölbebrücken, Dissertation Hochschule für Verkehrswesen “Friedrich List”
Dresden
Greenwold S, Allen E & Zalewski W (2008) Active Statics. http://acg.media.
mit.edu/people/simong/statics/Start.html
Gutermann M (2002) Ein Beitrag zur experimentell gestützten Tragsicherheitsbe-
wertung von Massivbrücken, Dissertation, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen
Haase H (1899) Theorie des parabolischen Brückengewölbes oder das
Grundgesetz des Horizontalschubs in seiner Anwendung auf das
Brückengewölbe unter der ausschließlichen Wirkung vertikaler Aussenkräfte,
entwickelt an dem Beispiel einer gewölbten Bahnüberbrückung. Kommis-
sionsverlag der Nationalen Verlagsanstalt, Regensburg
Hänel D & Reintjes KH (2001) Die Unterfangung des Bahrmühlenviaduktes,
Planung, Entwurf und Vergabe. Die Bautechnik, 78, pp 543–555
Hannawald F (2006) Zur physikalisch nichtlinearen Analyse von Verbund-Stab-
tragwerken unter quasi-statischer Langzeitbeanspruchung. Dissertation,
Technische Universität Dresden, Institut für Stahl- und Holzbau
Harvey B (2006) Some problems with arch bridge assessment and potential
solutions. Structural Engineer, 84 (3), 7th February 2006, pp 45–50
Harvey B (2008) Archie-M. http://billharvey.typepad.com/archi_m/
Harvey B, Ross K & Orbán Z (2007a) A simple, first filter assessment for arch
bridges. Proceedings of the Arch`07 – 5th International Conference on Arch
Bridges, PB Lourenco, DV Oliveira & A Portela (Eds), 12–14 September
2007, Madeira, pp 275–280
References 157

Harvey WJ (2007) Rule of thumb method for the assessment of arches. UIC Re-
port (draft)
Harvey WJ, Maunder EAW & Ramsay ACA (2007b) The influence of the span-
drel wall construction on arch bridge behaviour. Proceedings of the Arch`07 –
5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenco, DV Oliveira &
A Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 601–608
Haser H & Kaschner R (1994) Spezielle Probleme bei Brückenbauwerken in den
neuen Bundesländern. Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Verlag
für neue Wissenschaft, Bergisch Gladbach
Healey TN & Counsell JHW (1998) Widening and strengthening of Londons
Kingston Bridge. Arch Bridges: history, analysis, assessment, maintenance
and repair. Proceedings of the second international arch bridge conference,
Edr. A. Sinopoli, Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 389–398
Heinlein M (2008) Pauser Ingenieurbüro. Berechnung von gemauerten
Gewölbebrücken. One-on-one interview on the 16.12.2008
Heinrich B (1983) Brücken – Vom Balken zum Bogen. Rowohlt Taschenbuch
Verlag GmbH, Hamburg
Herrbruch J, Groß JP & Wapenhans W (2005) Wirklichkeitsnähere Tragwerksanalyse
von Gewölbebrücken. Mauerwerk 9, Heft 3, pp 89–92
Herzog R (1962) Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Bogen und Bogenüberbauten von
Brücken. Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verlag des Ministeriums für
Automobiltransport und Chaussee-Straßen der RSFSR, Moskau
Heyman J (1966) The stone skeleton. International Journal of Solids and Struc-
tures, 2, pp 249–279
Heyman J (1998) The assessment of strength of masonry arches. Arch Bridges:
History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the
Second International Arch Bridge Conference, Edr A Sinopoli, Venice 6.–9.
October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 95–98
Hoch G & Schmitt B (1999) Nebenbahnen in der Oberpfalz, Verlag Michael
Resch, Coburg
Huerta S (2001) Mechanics of masonry vaults: The equilibrium approach. Histori-
cal Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds), Guimarães, pp 47–69
Huerta S (2004) Arcos, bóvedas y cúpulas. Instituto Juan de Herrera. Escuela
Técnica Superior de Arquitetura Madrid.
Huges TG & Blackler MJ (1997) A review of the UK masonry arch assessment
methods. Proceedings of Institution Civil Engineering Structures and Build-
ings, 122, August, pp 305–315
Huster U (2000) Tragverhalten von einschaligem Natursteinmauerwerk unter
zentrischer Druckbeanspruchung: Entwicklung und Anwendung eines Finite-
Elemente-Programmes. Kassel University Press: Kassel
Jackson P (2004) Highways Agency BD on New Masonary Arch Bridges. 27th
February 2004. http://www.smart.salford.ac.uk/February_2004_Meeting.php
Jäger A (1935) Amerikanische Versuche an den Modellen eines eingespannten
Bogens und einer Bogenreihe. Beton- und Eisen, 34. Jahrgang, Heft 21,
pp 338–344
158 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Jäger A (1938) Untersuchung eines eingespannten Gewölbes und einer


Gewölbereihe unter Berücksichtigung der Hintermauerung als mittragende
Masse. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Jagfeld M & Barthel R (2004) Zur Gelenkbildung in historischen Tragsystemen
aus Mauerwerk. Bautechnik (81), Heft 2, pp–96102
Jagfeld M (1998) Tragverhalten gemauerter Wölbkonstruktionen bei großen
Auflagerverschiebungen – Vergleich verschiedener FE Modelle. 16. CAD-
FEM User’s Meeting, 7.–9. Oktober 1998 in Bad Neuenahr
Jensen JS, Plos M, Casas JR, Cremona C, Karoumi R & Melbourne C (2008)
Guideline for load and resistance assessment of existing European railway
bridges. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and In-
formatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London,
pp 3658–3665
Keip MA & Konietzky H (2005) Mauerwerk unter dynamischen Belastungen –
Untersuchungen mittels der DEM, Mauerwerkstag Essen, 3. Mai 2005
Knoblauch F-J, Laubach A, Sauer W, Schmidt M & Sprinke P (2008) Erneuerung
des Burtscheider Viadukts in Aachen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103, Heft 3,
pp 195–203
Kooharian A (1952) Limit analysis of voussoir (segmental) concrete arches.
Journal American Concerte Institute, 24, pp 317–328
Kurrer K-E (2002) Geschichte der Baustatik. Ernst und Sohn Verlag für
Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH, Berlin 2002
Lachmann H (1990) Über die Standsicherheit gemauerter Gewölbebrücken,
Bautechnik 67, Heft 2, pp 61–63
Leliavsky S (1982) Arches and short span bridges. Design Textbook in Civil En-
gineering: Volume VII, Chapman and Hall, London
Lemos JV (1995) Assessment of the ultimate load of a masonry arch using dis-
crete elements. Computer Methods in Structural Masonry – 3, GN Pande &
J Middleton (Eds), Books Journals International 1995, pp 294–302
Lemos JV (2006) Modelling of historical masonry with discrete elements. Compu-
tational Mechanics – Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems, Springer,
pp 375–391
LimitState Ltd (2008) http://www.masonryarch.com
Loo Y-C (1995) Collapse load analysis of masonry arch bridges. Arch Bridges.
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Arch Bridges, C. Melbourne
(Ed), Bolton, Thomas Telford, London, pp 167–174
Lourenço PB (1996) Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. Dissertation,
Technische Universität Delft, Delft University Press
Lourenço PB (2002) Computations on historic masonry structures, Structure En-
gineering Materials, 4, pp 301–319
Ludwig D (2000) Programm zur Ermittlung der Tragfähigkeit und der
Beförderungsbedingungen sowie zur Einstufungsberechnung an
Gewölbebrücken der Bewertungsstufe 2, DB Netz AG, Magdeburg
LUSAS (2005): Medieval masonry arch passes assessment with LUSAS
www.lusas.com/case/bridge/masonry_arch.html
Mamaghani IHP, Aydan Ö & Kajikawa Y (1999) Analysis of masonry structures
under static and dynamic loading by discrete finite element method. Journal of
References 159

Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, Japan Society of Civil En-


gineers (JSCE), Japan, No. 626/I-48, 16, pp 75–86
Martín-Caro JA & Martínez LJ (2004) A first level structural analysis tool for the
Spanisch Railways Masonry Arch Bridges. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in
Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molings (Eds),
CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 192–201
Martinez JA, Revilla J & Aragon Torre A (2001) Critical thickness criteria on
stone arch bridges with low rise/span ratio and current traffic loads. Historical
Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds), Guimarães, pp 609–616
Maunder EAW (1993) Limit analysis of masonry structures based on discrete
elements. Structural Repair and Maintenance of Historical Building III
(STREMAH), CA Brebbia & RJB Frewer (Ed), Computational Mechanics
Publication, Glasgow, pp 367–374
Melbourne C & Tao H (1998) The behaviour of open spandrel brickwork arch
bridges. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Re-
pair. Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Si-
nopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 263–269
Mildner K & Mildner A (2001) Bauwerksmessungen vor und nach der
Instandsetzung einer Eisenbahn-Gewölbebrücke und statische Modellbildung.
Ehrenkolloquium Prof. Dr.-Ing. Möller zum 60. Geburtstag, Lehrstuhl für
Statik und Dynamik der Tragwerke, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden
Mildner K (1996) Tragfähigkeitsermittlung von Gewölbebrücken auf der
Grundlage von Bauwerksmessungen. 6. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium,
Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 149–162
Model P (1977) Beitrag zur Berücksichtigung der Gewölbehintermauerung, der
Rissbildung und der elastischen Stützung durch den Baugrund und die
Dammschüttung bei der statischen Berechnung einfeldriger Gewölbebrücken,
Dissertation Hochschule für Verkehrswesen “Friedrich List” Dresden
Modena C, Valluzzi MR, da Porto F, Casarin F & Bettio C (2004) Structural up-
grading of a brick masonry arch bridge at the Lido (Venice). Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C
Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 435–443
Mojsilović N (1995) Zum Tragverhalten von kombiniert beanspruchten Mauer-
werk. Dissertation, IBK Bericht Nr. 216, ETH Zürich, Birkhäuser Verlag, Ba-
sel
Molins C & Roca P (1998) Capacity of masonry arches and spartial structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 124 (6), pp 653–663
Möller B, Graf W, Beer M & Bartzsch M (2002) Sicherheitsbeurteilung von
Naturstein-Bogenbrücken. 6. Dresdner Baustatik-Seminar. Rekonstruktion
und Revitalisierung aus statisch-konstruktiver Sicht. 18. Oktober 2002.
Lehrstuhl für Statik + Landesvereinigung der Prüfingenieure für Bautechnik
Sachsen + Ingenieurkammer Sachsen. Technische Universität Dresden,
pp 69–91
Mura I, Odoni Z & Perra M (2003) Static analysis of the Turris Lybisonis Roman
multispan stone arch bridge. Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture VIII, CA Brebbia (Ed), Southampton, WIT-Press 2003,
pp 667–674
160 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Nautiyal SD (1993) Parallel Computing Techniques for Investigating Three Di-


mensional Collapse of Masonry Arch. PhD. Cambridge University
Neuberg C (2002) Ein Verfahren zur Berechnung des räumlichen passiven
Erddrucks vor parallel verschobenen Trägern. Institut für Geotechnik,
Technische Universität Dresden, Mitteilungen Heft 11, Dresden
O’Connor A, Pedersen C, Enevoldsen I, Gustavsson L & Hammarbäck J (2008)
Probability Based Assessment of a Large Riveted Truss Railway Bridge.
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and Informat-
ics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
1812–1819
Obvis Ltd (2006) http://www.obvis.com/
Orlando M, Spinelli P & Vignoli A (2003) Structural analysis for the reconstruc-
tion design of the old bridge of Mostar. Structural Studies, Repairs and Main-
tenance of Heritage Architecture VIII, Edr Brebbia, WIT-Press, pp 617–626
Owen DR, Peric D, Petric N, Brookes CL & James PJ (1998) Finite/discrete ele-
ment models for assessment and repair of masonry structures. Arch Bridges:
History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the
Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9.
October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 173–180
Page AW (1983) The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tension-
compression. International Journal of Masonry Construction, 3(1), pp 26–31
Parikh SK & Patwardhan YG (1999) Widening of an existing old masonry arch
bridge through RCC box girder deck. Current and Future Trends in Bridge
Design, Construction and Maintenance in Bridge Design Construction and
Maintenance, PC Das, DM Frangopol & AS Nowak (Eds), Thomas Telford,
London, pp 218–226
Pauser A (2005) Ingenieurbüro: Guide to the high-level assessment of masonry
arch bridges. UIC Report (draft)
Prader J, Weidner JW, Hassanain H, Moon F, Aktan E, Jalinoos F, Buchanan B &
Ghasemi H (2008) Load Testing and Analysis of Bridges Missing Critical
Documentation. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitor-
ing and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 1877–1885
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung alter Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
Purtak F (2001) Tragfähigkeit von schlankem Mauerwerk. Dissertation.
Technische Universität Dresden, Fakultät Architektur
Purtak F (2004) Zur nichtlineare Berechnung von Bogenbrücken aus
Natursteinmauerwerk. 22. CAD-FEM Users Meeting 2004 – International
Congress on FEM Technology with ANSYS CFX & ICEM CFD Conference,
10.–12. November 2004, Dresden
Purtak F, Geißler K & Lieberwirth P (2007) Bewertung bestehender
Natursteinbogenbrücken. Bautechnik 8, Heft 8, pp 525–543
Reintjes K-H (2002) Die Unterfangung des Bahrmühlenviaduktes bei Chemnitz –
Stand des Bauvorhabens. 12. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium – Planung,
Bauausführung und Ertüchtigung von Massivbrücken. 14. März 2002.
References 161

Lehrstuhl für Massivbau – Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden,


pp 145–163
RING (2005) Technical details. http://www.shef.ac.uk/ring/technical.html
Roberti MG & Calvetti F (1998) Distinct element analysis of stone arches. Arch
Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceed-
ings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed),
Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema Rotterdam, pp 181–186
Roca P & Molins C (2004) Experiments on Arch Bridges. Arch Bridges IV -
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca &
C Molins (Eds), Barcelona, pp 365–374
Rombach G (2007) Probleme bei der Berechnung von Stahlbetnkonstruktionen
mittels dreidimensionaler Gesamtmodelle. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 102,
Heft 4, pp 207–214
Rots JG & van Zijl G (2005) Analysis of Concrete and Masonry Structures with
DIANA 9. Weiterbildungsseminar 31.5.-3.6.2005, München
Rouxinol GAF, Providencia P & Lemos JV (2007) Bridgemill bridge bearing ca-
pacity assessment by a discrete element method. Proceedings of the Arch`07 –
5th International Conference on Arch Bridges. PB Lourenco, DV Oliveira &
A Portela (Eds). 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 669–676
Royles R & Hendry AW (1991) Model tests on masonry arches, Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, 91 (2), pp 299–321
Rücker W, Hille F & Rohrmann R (2006) Guideline for the Assessment of Exist-
ing Structures. SAMCO Final Report 2006
Ruiz ME, Castelli EA, Prato TA (2008) A new bridge management system for the
National Department of Transportation of Argentina. Bridge Maintenance,
Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh & DM
Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 598–605
Schlegel R & Rautenstrauch K (2000) Ein elastoplastisches Berechnungsmodell
zur räumlichen Untersuchung von Mauerwerkstrukturen. Bautechnik 77, Heft
6, pp 426–436
Schlegel R & Will J (2007) Sensitivitätsanalyse und Parameteridentifikation von
bestehenden Mauerwerkstrukturen. Mauerwerk 11, Heft 6, pp 349–355
Schlegel R (2004) Numerische Berechnung von Mauerwerksstrukuren in
homogenen und diskreten Modellierungsstrategien. Dissertation. Bauhaus-
Universität Weimar
Schlegel R (2008) Möglichkeiten der numerischen Simulation von Mauerwerk
heute anhand praktischer Beispiele. Mauerwerkskalender 2009, Ernst und
Sohn
Schlegel R, Will J & Popp J (2003) Neue Wege zur realistischen Standsi-
cherheitsbewertung gemauerter Brückenviadukte und Gewölbe unter
Berücksichtigung der Normung mit ANSYS. 21. CAD-FEM User’s Meeting
2003, 12.–14. November 2003, Potsdam
Schreyer C (1960) Praktische Baustatik – Teil 3., BG Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft
Leipzig
Schueremans L (2001) Probabilistic evaluation of structural unreinforced
masonry, December 2001, Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
162 3 Computation of Historical Arch Bridges

Faculteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen, Departement Burgerlijke Bouwkunde,


Heverlee, Belgien,
Schueremans L, Van Rickstall F, Ignoul S, Brosens K, Van Balen K & Van
Gemert D (2003) Continuous Assessment of Historic Structures – A State of
the Art of applied Research and Practice in Belgium. KULeuven, Department
of Civil Engineering
Seim W & Schweizerhof K (1997) Nichtlineare FE-Analyse eben beanspruchter
Mauerwerksscheiben mit einfachen Werkstoffgesetzen. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 92, Heft 8, pp 201–207 and Heft 9, pp 239–244
Seim W (1998) Numerische Modellierung des anisotropische Versagens
zweiachsig beanspruchter Mauerwerksscheiben. Aus Forschung und Lehre,
Institut für Tragkonstruktionen, Universität Karlsruhe, Heft 27
SIA 269 (2008) Grundlagen der Erhaltung von Tragwerken.
Slowik V, Fiedler LD & Kapphahn G (2005) Zur kombinierten Anwendung
experimenteller und rechnerischer Methoden bei der Tragsicherheitsbe-
wertung bestehender Massivbauwerke, 3. Symposium Experimentelle
Untersuchungen von Betonkonstruktionen, Technische Universität Dresden,
Institut für Massivbau, 23.Juni 2005, Tagungsband, pp 157–168
Smars (2006) Calipous: http://pierre.smars.dyndns.org/calipous/
Smith CC, Gilbert M & Callaway PA (2004) Geotechnical issues in the analysis of
masonry arch bridges. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural
Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), pp 344–352
Stavrouli ME & Stavroulakis GE (2003) Unilateral contact analysis and failure
prediction in stone bridges. Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture VIII, CA Brebbia (Ed), WIT-Press, pp 308–315
Straub H (1992) Die Geschichte der Bauingenieurkunst. Ein Überblick von der
Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel
Thavalingam A, Bicanic N, Robinson JI & Ponniah DA (2001) Computational
framework for discontinuous modelling of masonry arch bridges. Computers
and Structures, 79, pp 1821–1830
Toker S & Ünay A I (2004) Mathematical modelling and finite element analysis
of masonry arch bridges. G.U. Journal of Science, 17 (2): pp 129–139
Towler KDS (1985) Applications of non-linear finite element codes to masonry
arches, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Civil and Struc-
tural Engineering Computing
Trautz M (1998) Zur Entwicklung von Form und Struktur historischer Gewölbe
aus Sicht der Statik. Dissertation, Institut für Baustatik, Universität Stuttgart,
Stuttgart
UIC-Codex (1995) Empfehlungen für die Bewertung des Tragvermögens
bestehender Gewölbebrücken aus Mauerwerk und Beton. Internationaler
Eisenbahnverband. 1. Ausgabe 1.7.1995
University of Sheffield (2008) http://www.ring.shef.ac.uk/
Vermeltfoort AT (2001) Analysis and experiments of masonry arches. Historical
Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds), Guimarães, pp 489–498
Voigtländer J (1971) Beitrag zur Ermittlung der Schnittkraftumlagerung in
Gewölbebrücken infolge Rissbildung, Dissertation Hochschule für Verke-
hrswesen “Friedrich List” Dresden
References 163

von Leibbrand K (1897) Gewölbte Brücken. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann,


Leipzig
Weber WK (1999) Die gewölbte Eisenbahnbrücke mit einer Öffnung.
Begriffserklärungen, analytische Fassung der Umrisslinien und ein erweitertes
Hybridverfahren zur Berechnung der oberen Schranke ihrer
Grenztragfähigkeit, validiert durch einen Großversuch. Dissertation, Lehrstuhl
für Massivbau der Technischen Universität München
Wedler B (1997) Einfluß der Füllungsschichtung auf das Tragverhalten des
mehrschaligen Mauerwerks in historischen Bauwerken. Diplomarbeit.
Technische Universität Dresden. Lehrstuhl für Massivbau
Weigert A (1996) Untersuchung zum Einfluss der Steinhöhe auf das
Tragverhalten des einschaligen Mauerwerks aus Elbsandstein. Diplomarbeit.
Lehrstuhl für Massivbau. Technische Universität Dresden
Willam KJ & Warnke EP (1974) Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behaviour of
Concrete, IABSE Report Vol. 19, 1974, Colloquium on „Concrete Structures
Subjected to Triaxial Stresses“. ISMES Bergamot
Witzany J & Jäger W (2005) Die Karlsbrücke in Prag. Mauerwerk 9, Heft 3, pp
108–119
Wolf F (1989) Ein Beitrag zur Beurteilung des Tragverhaltens von massiven
Eisenbahn-Gewölbebrücken. Dissertation, Hochschule für Verkehrswesen.
Dresden
4 Masonry Strength

“Numerical models are best suited to problems within a known solution


space.”

M. F. M. Yossef, Delft 2005

4.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, the numerical modelling of arch bridges was dis-
cussed intensively. During the discussion, it should have become clear that
in most cases, historical arch bridges fail due to the development of a
mechanism chain with hinges, by sliding, or by a combination of this. For
these models, the compression strength is not of utmost importance. How-
ever, in two other cases one has to consider the masonry compression
strength: first looking at the developing hinges where maximum compres-
sion forces are reached, and second considering arch bridges under maxi-
mum equal load. Maximum equal load can be reached by widening the
road lane and therefore increasing the dead load of the bridge.
The estimation of the maximum strength of masonry is not a simple
task. Masonry is a multi component building material. Due to the enor-
mous variety of physical and chemical properties of the components
(Table 4-1), many different numerical models have been developed over
time to describe the strength of masonry. In general, the different numeri-
cal models can be classified into different types of models. The model
classifications are shown in Fig. 4-1.

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_4,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
166 4 Masonry Strength

Table 4-1. Some major factors influencing the masonry strength according to
Wenzel (1997)
Stone and brick Mortar Masonry Structural element
Compression strength Compression Joint thickness Dimensions
Flexural bending strength Joint filling Slenderness
strength Adhesion bond Cavity ratio Support conditions
Stress–strain curve with stone Layer thickness Stiffening
Throatiness Stone order Connection to other
Surface working longitudinal and structural elements
transverse Direction of loading
Eccentricity

Fig. 4-1. Classifications of numerical masonry models according to Meskouris


et al. (2004)

4.2 Masonry Elements

4.2.1 Masonry Stones

4.2.1.1 Types of natural stones and their properties


Stones are static homogenous, natural mineral conglomerates, which make
up a compound caused by some geo dynamical processes (Herrbach 1996).
Stones are classified according to their origin into genetic systems. This
system distinguishes three major groups (Table 4-2). Stones evolve from
mineral melt, magma and lava igneous. Stones originating from some
diagenetic processes of deposited material are called sediment stones.
4.2 Masonry Elements 167

Stones that show new crystallization under high pressure and temperature
are called metamorphic stones.

Table 4-2. Classification of stones


Major group Sub-group Examples
Igneous Plutonic Granite
Volcanic Basanite
Matrix Gabbro
Sedimentary Clastic sediments Sandstone
Chemical sediment Lime stone
Biogenic sediment Chert
Residual stones
Metamorphic Mica schist

Indeed a complete classification by this system is not possible (Börner


and Hill 1999). Further properties such as colour, structure, or technical
properties have been used to identify the so-called varieties. Peschel
(1984) clearly shows the differences of these technical properties. Techni-
cal properties and possible application of natural stones are given in Peschel
(1984), Dienemann and Burre (1929), Gäbert et al. (1915), and Schubert
(2004) for German natural stones. A summary is listed in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Technical properties of some natural stones according to Stein (1993)
Weights Compression Flexural bend- Thermal expan-
in kN/m3 strength in ing strength in sion coefficient
MPa MPa in mm/mK
Granite, Syenite 28 160–240 10–20 0.80
Diorite, Gabbro 30 170–300 10–22 0.88
siliceous porphyry 28 180–300 15–20
Basalt lava 24 80–150 8–12
Diabase 29 180–250 15–25 0.75
Quartzite, Greywacke 27 150–300 12–20
Siliceous sandstone 27 120–200 3–15
Dense lime and dolomite 28 80–180 6–15 0.75
stones
Other lime stones 28 20–90 5–8
Travertine 26 20–60 4–10 0.68
Volcanic Tuff 20 2–6
Gneiss 30 160–280 10–15

The determination of the strength of natural stones depends on many


factors that have to be considered and stated. Such factors are, for exam-
ple, the size of the test specimen, the humidity of the stone material, or the
168 4 Masonry Strength

layering of the stone material. Figure 4-2 illustrates the effect of the
specimen size on the flexural bending strength of granite stone in terms of
specimen height. The left side of the diagram shows data that have been
taken from many different references, whereas on the right side predomi-
nantly its own data have been used. Furthermore, on the far right, data
from uniaxial tensile tests have been included. A complete list of data ref-
erences is given in Curbach and Proske (2003).

Fig. 4-2. Flexural bending strength of granite based on the test specimen height
(Curbach et al. 2004)

Not only do different test conditions heavily influence the outcome of


the stone properties, but natural stone material also shows, in most cases,
strong deviation from the mean value. This is exemplarily shown in Figs.
4-3 and 4-4. Here, compression and splitting tensile test results are shown
as frequencies for 500 samples of Saxon sandstone (from Lohmen). Stud-
ies by Curbach and Proske (1998) indicate a possible application of the
normal distribution (Gauss distribution) or the beta distribution for the
compression strength of natural stones. Furthermore, Fig. 4-5 shows a corre-
lation analysis for the data. From this figure, it becomes clear that a correla-
tion between the aforementioned strength values is almost negligible.
Further, such investigations are shown in Proske (2003). For German natural
stones, Peschel (1984) gives a nearly complete list of technical properties
including not only mean values but also measurements for variance and
deviation.
4.2 Masonry Elements 169

Sometimes, not only the maximum strength values of the natural stones
are required but also the complete stress-strain relationship is needed.
Although this topic will not be discussed here in detail, an example of a
stress-strain relationship is shown in Fig. 4-6 for Silesia sandstone. More
detailed information can be found in Alfes (1992) for sandstone.

Fig. 4-3. Histogram for the compression strength of Saxon sandstone according to
Curbach and Proske (1998)
170 4 Masonry Strength

Fig. 4-4. Histogram for the splitting tensile strength of Saxon sandstone according
to Curbach and Proske (1998)

Fig. 4-5. Correlation analysis between sandstone compression strength and


splitting tensile strength according to Curbach and Proske (1998)
4.2 Masonry Elements 171

Fig. 4-6. Stress-strain relationship for Silesia sandstone (Frenzel 2004)

4.2.1.2 Working types of natural stones

The same types of stones are frequently used within a region. This effect is
often visible if one compares geological maps, such as the one for the Free
State Saxony (1992), with the geographical distribution of certain natural
building materials.
This is especially true for sediment stones, which were heavily used in
former centuries. This type of stone is easy to work with. Therefore, for
example in Saxony, many buildings received a covering of sandstone.
Igneous stones were also used in early times for structures. Granite, for
example, was already used as a building material in Germany by the Ro-
mans in the 2nd century (Müller 1977). In contrast to the sediment stones,
working with igneous stones was much more difficult. Therefore, different
working levels exist for this type of stone.
Quarry stones and cobblestones are usually rough and irregular in ge-
ometry. There are great deviations in the size of these stones: the size de-
pends on their strength and workability. The only joints observed by geo-
logical processes acting on the stones themselves are parallel horizontal
joints, and such joints can be bedding.
Cut stones show abrasive worked joints where the stones are mainly
produced by cleaving. Horizontal and vertical joints are already in a rec-
tangular angle. The chosen geometry still depends very much on the stone
strength. Freestones or cut stones feature sight surfaces that are manufac-
tured based on geometrical and artistic requirements.
The sight surfaces can furthermore be distinguished as shown in Table
4-4 and Fig. 4-7.
172 4 Masonry Strength

Table 4-4. Working types of stone sight surfaces according to Warnecke (1995)
Name Pointed Flattened Pilled Charring Wide charring
1st action 2nd action
Muster

Tool

Time Until middle Until End 12th until Middle 15th From middle
of the 11th beginning of End 13th to end 17th 17th century
century the 12th century century
century

Fig. 4-7. Further stone sight surface working types, such as the Belgium and the
Dutch type, according to Van der Vlist et al. (1998)

4.2.2 Mortar

Historically, masonry arch bridges can be found with and without mortar.
Masonry can tolerate some loads even if it is fabricated with sand instead
of mortar or without any joint material (this will be mentioned again later).
However, historical bridges constructed without mortar usually had iron
clamps to provide connection to the next stone (Straub 1992). An example
of a historical bridge without masonry is the Pont du Gard in France
(Garbrecht 1995). This bridge clearly shows that such structures can
survive long lifetimes. Armaly et al. (2004) assume that the iron clamps
can increase the load-bearing capacity up to 30%.
Besides those bridges without mortar, most historical arch bridges made
of masonry have used, and still consist of, mortar. The properties of his-
torical mortar are discussed in many publications such as in Baronio and
Binda (1991), Huesmann and Knöfel (1991), Knöfel and Schubert (1991),
Knöfel and Middendorf (1991), Wisser and Knöfel (1988), Warnecke
(1995), Franken and Müller (2001), Freyburg (1994), Franken (1995),
Gucci and Barsotti (1995), van Hees et al. (2004), Domède et al. (2008),
and Bökea et al. (2006). Figure 4-8 gives an overview about the many dif-
ferent factors influencing the final strength of the mortar.
4.2 Masonry Elements 173

In general, historical mortar is weaker and much softer compared to


modern mortar. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 show some values of the compression
strength of historical mortar. Figure 4-9 shows the stress-strain relationships
of different mortar types, and Fig. 4-10 gives a comparison of historical
and modern mortars.

Fig. 4-8. Influences on the strength of mortar inside masonry according to Huster
(2000)

Table 4-5. Compression strength of historical mortar according to Papayianni and


Stefanidou (2003)
Structure Period Compression strength in MPa
Roman Forum 2nd century 2.5–4.0
Galerius Palace 3rd century 3.0–4.5
Acheropiitos 5th century 2.3–3.0
Hagia Sophia 7th century 2.0–6.0
Hagios Panteleimonas 14th century 1.0–1.4
Hagia Aikaterini 13th century 1.6–2.0
Bezesteni 16th century 2.5–3.5
Old house Mouson 19th century 1.5–2.0

Table 4-6. Compression strength of historical mortars according to the COST 345
(2006)
Mortar class Mixture ratio cement : lime : sand Compression strength in MPa
(volume)
I 1:0–0.25:3 11–16
II 1:0–5:4.5 4.5–6.5
III 1:1:5–6 2.5–3.6
IV 1:2:8–9 1.0–1.5
V 1:3:10–12 0.5–1.0
VI 0:1:2–3 (hydraulic lime) 0.5–1.0
VII 0:1:2–3 (pure lime) 0.5–1.0
174 4 Masonry Strength

Fig. 4-9. Comparison of the stress-strain relationship for historical and modern
mortar according to Warnecke (1995)

Fig. 4-10. Stress-strain relationships for different lime mortars according to


Frenzel (2004)

Large deformations in combination with creeping of the masonry may


cause failure of historical structures. An example of the failure of a struc-
ture where mortar could potentially have been the cause was the city tower
in Pavia. However, mortar did not cause the failure of this medieval tower,
resulting in four fatalities, as studies showed later. Other examples of the
failure of historical structures in relation to the creep of masonry, with a
significant contribution by mortar, are given in Verstrynge et al. (2008).
Furthermore, the strength of historical mortar shows great deviations as
illustrated in Figs. 4-11 and 4-12. Figure 4-11 shows the distribution of the
mortar strength for the city tower in Pavia. The data from Fig. 4-12
originate from a bridge built in 1875. In the face of statistical analysis, it
should be mentioned here that very often the mortar data from historical
structures are heavily censored. This means that very often mortar cores or
specimens do not survive the exploitation process and only the strongest
4.2 Masonry Elements 175

can be finally tested. This should be considered and kept in mind while in-
interpreting mortar data from such structures. The deviation of the mortar
strength is related not only to the exploitation process but also to the loss
of binder and to the grading curves as shown in Fig. 4-13.
For the testing of mortar, many different codes and recommendations
exist, such as DIN 18555 1-9 (1982).

Fig. 4-11. Example of the strength distribution of historical mortar based on


Baronio and Binda (1991)
176 4 Masonry Strength

Fig. 4-12. Example of the strength distribution of historical mortar based on


measurements of one bridge by Proske (2003)

Fig. 4-13. Comparison of the grading curves of some historical (left) and some
Roman mortar (right) according to Wisser and Knöfel (1988)

4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength

Based on the known properties of the single elements of masonry, the es-
timation of the properties of the masonry should be theoretically possible.
Although this trial has been carried out frequently, an entire theory about
the estimation of the strength properties based on the mechanical properties
of the elements is still missing. Most models are based on simple empirical
4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength 177

investigations and are usually strongly related to the special conditions of


the investigated masonry type. A chronological list of models partially
taken from Purtak (2001), Schulenberg (1982), and Mann (1983) for the
maximum masonry compression strength is given by the following:
Krüger (1916), Graf (1926), Drögsler (1933), Voellmy (1937), Drögsler
(1938), Hansson (1939), Hermann (1942), Kreüger (1943), Nylander
(1944), Svenson (1944), Haller (1947), Ekblad (1949), Oniszczyk (1951),
Bröcker (1961), Hilsdorf (1965/69), Monk (1967), Francis et al. (1970),
Khoo and Hendry (1972), Brenner (1973), Schnackers (1973), Kirtschig
(1975), Probst (1981), Schulenberg (1982), Rustmeier (1982), Mann
(1982/83), Atkinson et al. (1985), Ohler (1986), Berndt (1992/96), Sabha
and Pöschel (1993), Babylon (1994), and Ebner (1996).
However, the simple naming of these models is not sufficient because
most models are only based on the analysis of some tests, whereas other
models include some theoretical considerations. The models based on
limited tests are strongly related to special conditions or properties of the
tests, such as stone type. Therefore, in the following, some of the models
will be discussed in more detail.

4.3.1 Model According to DIN 1053-100

The new German code of practice DIN 1053-100 (2004) is the follower of
the DIN 1053-1 (1996). The new code gives some rough measures for the
natural stone masonry compression strength based on the stone strength
and the mortar type. The application is simple since only two tables have
to be used (Tables 4-7 and 4-8). First, the masonry has to be classified, and
second, according to the classification, the stone strength, and mortar class,
the masonry strength can be estimated.

Table 4-7. Classification of natural stone masonry according to DIN 1053-100


Quality General classification Joint height to Angle of Transfer factor η
category stone length joint in tan
α
N1 Quarry stone masonry ≤ 0.25 ≤ 0.30 ≥ 0.50
N2 Hammered coursed rubble ≤ 0.20 ≤ 0.15 ≥ 0.65
masonry
N3 Coursed rubble masonry ≤ 0.13 ≤ 0.10 ≥ 0.75
N4 Ashlar masonry ≤ 0.07 ≤ 0.05 ≥ 0.85
178 4 Masonry Strength

Table 4-8. Characteristic mortar compression strength based on stone strength and
mortar class according to DIN 1053-100 (2004)
Quality category Stone compression Mortar compression strength fk in MPa
strength fbk subject to the mortar group
I II IIa III
N1 ≥ 20 Mpa 0.6 1.5 2.4 3.6
≥ 50 Mpa 0.9 1.8 2.7 4.2
N2 ≥ 20 MPa 1.2 2.7 4.2 5.4
≥ 50 MPa 1.8 3.3 4.8 6.0
N3 ≥ 20 MPa 1.5 4.5 6.0 7.5
≥ 50 MPa 2.1 6.0 7.5 10.5
≥ 100 MPa 3.0 7.5 9.0 12.0
N4 ≥ 5 MPa 1.2 2.0 2.5 3.0
≥ 10 MPa 1.8 3.0 3.6 4.5
≥ 20 MPa 3.6 6.0 7.5 9.0
≥ 50 MPa 6.0 10.5 12.0 15.0
≥ 100 MPa 9.0 13.5 16.5 21.0

4.3.2 Model According to DIN 1053

The former German code of practice DIN 1053 (1996) also gave a table for
the estimation for the natural stone masonry compression strength (Table
4-9). It is likely that the table was based on the model from Mann, because
the stone compression strength has only a minor influence on the masonry
compression strength, and the stone tensile strength has not been considered.

Table 4-9. Characteristic mortar compression strength based on stone strength and
mortar class according to DIN 1053 (1996)
Quality Stone compression Mortar compression strength σ0 in MPa subject
category strength fbk to the mortar group
I II IIa III
N1 ≥ 20 MPa 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2
≥ 50 MPa 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4
N2 ≥ 20 MPa 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.8
≥ 50 MPa 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.0
N3 ≥ 20 MPa 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5
≥ 50 MPa 0.7 2.0 2.5 3.5
≥ 100 MPa 1.0 2.5 3.0 4.0
N4 ≥ 20 MPa 1.2 2.0 2.5 3.0
≥ 50 MPa 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0
≥ 100 MPa 3.0 4.5 5.5 7.0
4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength 179

4.3.3 Empirical Exponential Models

The tables mentioned in the German codes are a very simple way to assess
the compression strength of natural stone masonry. Pure empirical models
of the masonry compression strength fmas,c have also found wide application
due to their simple application. Furthermore, they are easy to develop by
simple regression analysis. A common type are exponential equations
using the stone compression strength fst,c and the mortar compression
strength fmo,c such as developed by Schubert and Krämer:
fmas,c = a ⋅ fstb,c ⋅ fmo
c
,c .
(4-1)

This type is, for example, used in the Eurocode 6. The 5% quantile of
the masonry compression strength fmas,c,k is then computed using average
compression strength values of the stone fst,c,m and the mortar fmo,c,m:
fmas,c,k = 0.40 ⋅ fst0.75
,c , m ⋅ f mo ,c , m .
0.25 (4-2)

Mann (1983) gives the following parameters:


fmas,c,m = 0.83 ⋅ fst0.66
,c , m ⋅ f mo ,c , m .
0.18 (4-3)

However, Mann’s parameters may not fit very well for natural stone
masonry. Therefore, the Ril 805 (1999) suggests the following exponents:
fmas,c ,m = 0.80 ⋅ fst0.70
,c , m ⋅ f mo ,c , m .
0.20 (4-4)

4.3.4 Model According to Hilsdorf

In contrast to the former simple regression model, Hilsdorf (1969) devel-


oped a model for the estimation of the compression strength of masonry
based on the multi axial stress conditions in the stone and the mortar. The
model therefore includes some theoretical considerations. In general, the
model assumes that the low Young’s modulus of the mortar restrains the
deformation of the stone posited in the masonry. These restraints cause
transverse tensile forces inside the stone and transverse compression forces
inside the mortar (Fig. 4-14). First, Hilsdorf simply assumed that there was
a perfect bond between the mortar and the stone, but later dismissed this
assumption. The model was primarily developed for brick masonry, yet
was later adapted to natural stone masonry by a so-called asymmetry factor.
The major advantage of this model is the theoretical consideration, but a
180 4 Masonry Strength

drawback is the estimation of the asymmetry factor (Weigert 1996, Wedler


1997, and Warnecke et al. 1995).
The masonry compression strength is given as
fst ,c (4-5)

fmas,c = u ⋅ ( fst ,sp + a ⋅ fmo ,c )


fst ,sp + a ⋅ fst ,c

with fmas,c as masonry compression strength, fst,c as stone compression


strength, fst,sp as stone splitting tensile strength, fmo,c as mortar compression
strength, u as asymmetry factor, and a as
t (4-6)
a= h
4.1
with t as joint height and h as stone height.

Fig. 4-14. Stress stages inside the masonry according to Hilsdorf (Warnecke et al.
1995)

4.3.5 Model According to Mann

Mann (1983) observed that the behaviour of masonry made of artificial


stones (bricks) differs significantly from that of natural stones. The
asymmetry and roughness of the stones and the joints yield to a
qualitatively different load-bearing mechanism. Furthermore, natural stones
mainly show a higher tensile strength compared to bricks. Therefore,
4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength 181

Mann assumes that the failure of natural stone masonry will be dominated
by the failure of the mortar inside the masonry. This assumption, however,
is in complete contradiction of test results with masonry built with sand in-
instead of mortar. Usually, the uniaxial compression strength of the sand is
virtually negligible. Then, the masonry is still able to take considerable
loads whereas the formula from Mann would give the masonry
compression strength of zero. The masonry failed by tearing of the stones
(Warnecke et al. 1995).
f mas ,c = f mo ,c ⋅ f ⋅ ü (4-7)

8 1 (4-8)
f = ⋅ 2
9 ⎡ 2 t⎤
1 − ⎢1 − ⋅ ⎥ ⋅ cos 4 α
⎣ 3 b⎦

AS (4-9)
ü=
AMW
In this, b is the width of the stone, ü is the effective cross section and α
is the angle of the joints. Mann’s formula gives good results for rubble
masonry with weak mortar. It can be related to the works by Rustmeier
(1982).

4.3.6 Model According to Berndt

Berndt (Berndt 1996, Berndt and Schöne 1991, and Wenzel 1997) has
developed a concept for coursed rubble masonry from the so-called Elbe-
sandstone. Berndt assumes a splitting tensile failure of the stone. As an
extension to the work from Hilsdorf, Berndt not only considers tensile
forces inside the stone due to constrained deformation of the mortar caused
by the stone, but also tensile forces caused by force direction changes due
to the unequal cross-sectional areas of the mortar and of the stone. The
estimation of the maximum masonry compression strength is given as
f st ,c (4-10)
f ma ,c =
⎡t v b d ' ⎤ f st ,c
⎢⎣ h ⋅ 1 − v + k ⋅ h ⋅ b ⎥⎦ ⋅ f + 0.7
st , sp

with
k = 0.3...0.5 (4-11)
182 4 Masonry Strength

t (4-12)
d'≈t+
⎛ ρ⎞
tan ⎜ 45 + ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
and
⎧ h ⎫ (4-13)
h ' = min ⎨ ⎬.
⎩10 cm ⎭
Besides the shear formula, Berndt and Schöne (1991) have furthermore
introduced a safety concept for the application of this formula. This is very
useful, since for many formulas it is unclear what characteristic value of
the masonry compression strength is computed. Table 4-10 shows the
single elements of this concept.

Table 4-10. Safety elements in the safety concept for the evaluation of the
compression masonry strength using the model by Berndt and Schöne (1991)
Factor Description
m1 Considers the change from mean masonry compression strength to
characteristic masonry strength, usually the 5% fractile value
m2 Considers the slenderness oft the test specimen
m3 Considers the impossibility of load flow changes in piers
m4 Considers the change from mean stone compression strength to charac-
teristic stone compression strength, usually the 5% fractile value:
s
m4,1 = 1 − 1.645 ⋅
fst ,c
Considers the change from mean stone splitting tensile strength to cha-
racteristic stone splitting tensile strength, usually the 5% fractile value:
s
m4,1 = 1 − 1.645 ⋅
fst , sp
m5 Considers the joint thickness influence on the load-bearing behaviour:
m5 = 0.85
m6 Considers the Sprödbruch behaviour of the masonry: m6 = 0.85
m7 Considers the influence of the stone layering on the masonry
compression strength: m7 = 0.90
m8 Considers the long-term loading strength of the masonry: m8 = 0.90

For a realistic case, some values are given in the following:


4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength 183

m1 = m4,1 ⋅ m4,2 ⋅ m5 ⋅ m6 ⋅ m7 ⋅ m8 (4-14)


m1 = 0.426 ⋅ 0.604 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ 0.85 ⋅ 0.90 ⋅ 0.90 = 0.151 .
The characteristic masonry compression strength then reaches
fma,c ,k = fma,c,m ⋅ ∏ m = 30.9 ⋅ 0.151 = 4.66 MPa (4-15)

In terms of a global safety factor, a value between 4 and 5 is reached.

4.3.7 Model According to Sabha

The models of Berndt and Sabha have both been developed in Dresden,
Germany, and are both strongly connected to the Elb sandstone found in
this region. Furthermore, both authors consider mechanisms that cause a
splitting tensile failure of the stones when masonry fails under maximum
compression forces. However, as an extension to Berndt, Sabha (Sabha
and Schöne 1994, Sabha and Weigert 1996, and Wenzel 1997) considers
the locations of regions with maximum splitting tensile forces for the two
mechanisms causing such forces. Whereas the maximum tensile force due
to force change direction is approximately in the middle of the stone
height, the maximum tensile force due to strain restraints of the mortar is
reached in the stone heights close to the mortar. Therefore, Sabha does not
add both the tensile forces that should reach higher masonry compression
forces in comparison to Berndt:
2 ⋅ k ⋅ f st ,c + f st ,sp (4-16)
f ma ,c =
f
k + st ,sp
f st ,c

with

t⎛ f st , sp ⎞ (4-17)
k = 1.6 ⎜⎜ 1.45 + 1⎟⎟ .
b⎝ f st ,c ⎠
Boye (1998) gives an extension of the Sabha model for flat stones.

4.3.8 Model According to Ohler

The UIC-Codex (1995) for the recomputation of the load bearing of


historical railway bridges uses a model that is based on works by Ohler
(1986). The formula of Ohler (1986) is given as
184 4 Masonry Strength

a ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ fst ,c ,m − 0.5 ⋅ fmo ,c ,m (4-18)


fma ,c = 0.5 ⋅ fmo ,c ,m +
b ⋅ hF ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ fst ,c ,m
1+
2 ⋅ hS ⋅ 0.05 ⋅ fst ,c ,m
with hF as mortar joint thickness and hs as stone height. The splitting
tensile strength of the stones inside the formula is considered as 5%
fractile value.

4.3.9 Model According to Stiglat

Based on some experiments on historical stone masonry, Stiglat (1984) has


developed a simple model that only considers the density of the stones γ
and the mortar quality in terms of mortar groups (MG). The model is
dominated by the stone failure according to Huster (2000).
0.007 ⋅ (18.7 ⋅ γ − 355.2 MPa) for MG I (4-19)
fma = 0.017 ⋅ (18.7 ⋅ γ − 355.2 MPa) for MG II .
0.024 ⋅ (18.7 ⋅ γ − 355.2 MPa) for MG III

4.3.10 Model According to Francis, Horman and Jerrems

The model of Francis et al. (1970) is based on works by Hilsdorf (Purtak


2001 and Simon 2002). The masonry compression strength is computed as
1 (4-20)
fma ,c = fst ,c ⋅
fst ,c ⎛ Est ⎞
⋅⎜ ⋅ μmo − μst ⎟
1 + st ,sp ⎝ mo ⎠ .
f E
hS E st
⋅ ⋅ (1 − μmo )
t E mo

4.3.11 Model According to Khoo and Hendry

The model of Khoo and Hendry (1972) uses a cubic equation for the
estimation of the failure curves of stones and masonry. The masonry
compression strength is then given by
4.3 Maximum Centric Masonry Compression Strength 185

hs (4-21)
(0.997 ⋅ fst ,sp + 0.162 ⋅ ⋅ fmo ,c ) +
t
fst ,sp h
(0.203 ⋅ + 0.113 ⋅ s ) ⋅ fmas ,c +
fst ,c t
fst ,sp hs
(1.278 ⋅ − 0.053 ⋅ ) ⋅ fmas
2
,c +
f 2
st , c t ⋅ fmo ,c
fst ,sp hs
(0.249 ⋅ − 0.002 ⋅ ) ⋅ fmas
3
,c = 0 .
fst3,c t ⋅ fmo
2
,c

The works by Khoo and Hendry were extended by Probst (Simon 2002).

4.3.12 Model According to Schnackers

Furthermore, the model by Schnackers (1973) is only roughly mentioned:


hs (4-22)
1 ⋅ fst ,sp + t ⋅ fmo ,sp
fmas ,c = ⋅ 2 .
μmas hs + t

4.3.13 Model According to Ebner

Finally, the model by Ebner (1996) is given here as


⎡ t ⎛ σ y ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ n ⋅ bs ⎞
0.4 (4-23)
= ⎢1 − 1.2 ⋅ ⋅ (1 − 2 ⋅ tan ϕ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ ⎜1 −
l ⎟⎠
fmas,c .
⎢⎣ d ⎝ c ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎝

4.3.14 Further Masonry Compression Models

Many further models for the computation of masonry compression strength


are known as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter. Such models, not
discussed here, are (for example) models by Atkinson et al. (1985),
Rustmeier (1982), or Pöschel. The comparison of all models based on
different items such as model deviation, robustness, convergence, possible
measurement of the input data, and minimum of required input data
would exceed the capacity of this book. For the interested reader, the
186 4 Masonry Strength

works by Huster (2000), Purtak (2001) or Warnecke, Rostasy and Budel-


Budelmann (1995) can be recommended.

4.4 Stress-strain Relationship

The maximum compression strength of masonry is only one part in the


estimation of masonry structural elements. Usually, structural elements not
only are exposed to axial forces but also have to bear moments and shear
forces. For such investigations, usually the stress-strain relationship for
masonry under axial forces is required.
Several models of such relationships can be found in literature. An
overview of current models has been given by Glock (2004), Lissai (1986),
Becker and Bernard (1991), and Walthelm (1990). Glock lists the
following models:
• Angervo (mineralic no-tensile materials)
• Becker and Bernard (masonry)
• Lewicki (concrete)
• Sargin (concrete)
• Jäger (masonry)
• DIN 1045 (concrete)
• Eurocode 6 (masonry), see Fig. 4-15.
A second look at the models reveals that only a minority is related to
masonry and most stress-strain relationships originate from concrete.

Fig. 4-15. Stress-strain relationship for masonry according to the Eurocode 6

The application of nonlinear stress-strain relationships for the computa-


tions of the ultimate load-bearing behaviour of masonry structural ele-
ments offers an increase in the numerical load by up to 25%, according to
Becker and Bernard (1991). Figure 4-16 shows the development of different
4.5 Moment-Axial Force Diagrams 187

stress distributions in a cross section during the computation of the axial


force with eccentricity.

Fig. 4-16. Different stress distribution in a cross section according to Mann (1991)

4.5 Moment-Axial Force Diagrams

Besides the application of maximum stress measures for masonry or the


application of stress-strain relationships, moment-axial force diagrams can
also be used. The advantage of this diagram is the consideration of the
nonlinear behaviour of the stress-strain relationship of masonry in a simple
way, while the disadvantage is numerous computations to prepare such
diagrams. However, if such diagrams are available, they can be easily used
by practitioners. Such diagrams have been developed and published by
Purtak (2001) – Fig. 4-17 for masonry walls and for arch bridges (Purtak et
al. 2007). Furthermore, Lissai (1986) and Pauser (2005) have also prepared
such moment-axial force diagrams.

Fig. 4-17. Example of a moment-axial force diagram from Purtak et al. (2007)
188 4 Masonry Strength

4.6 Additional-leaf Masonry

4.6.1 Introduction

Besides the single-leaf masonry discussed so far, historical masonry


consists in most cases of additional leafs due to the significant thickness of
the masonry structural elements. This is also true for the piers of arch
bridges or other elements of the arch bridges. Such a multi-leaf structure
can often be proven by horizontal drillings into the piers.
Again, there exist many different models for such multi-leaf masonry.
An introduction this field is given in Warnecke et al. (1995). In this
chapter, only the models by Warnecke and Egermann are introduced.

4.6.2 Model According to Warnecke

Warnecke (1997) has introduced diagrams for the computation of


maximum forces for multi-leaf masonry elements. He assumes that a
correct estimation of the strength of masonry elements alone from drillings
is not possible. Furthermore, a cohesive inner layer is considered. The
following formulas show further assumptions, such as
vMo + vSt + v Hohlraum = 1 (4-24)

1 (1 − vSt ) 2 vSt (4-25)


= + .
Ei Emo ⋅ vmo ESt
The strength of the inner masonry layer can be computed as
vmo (4-26)
f mas ,c ,i = f mo ,c ⋅ .
1 − vSt
The strength of the outer masonry layers can be done equal to single-
leaf masonry.

4.6.3 Model According to Egermann

The model according to Eggermann (1995) uses the following assump-


tions:
• External leaf with brick masonry and stretcher bond, the slenderness is
less than 13.3
4.6 Additional-leaf Masonry 189

• Existence of cohesive internal lead


• There exists a plain surface between the external and the internal leaf
• Bernoullis hypothesis is valid (even strain distribution of cross section)
• Symmetrical support conditions at base and crown (usually fixed)
• Rigid foundation for the entire cross section
The basis value can be evaluated according to a singe-leaf masonry.
However, this value has to be adapted according to
f DA = α λ ⋅ αϕ ⋅ f mas ,c (4-27)

with
fDA Masonry compression strength of the external leaf
fmas,c Masonry compression strength of the external leaf computed as
single-leaf masonry
αϕ Consideration of the direction of pre-stressing
αϕ = 1 pre-stressing direction parallel to the loading direction
αϕ = 2 pre-stressing direction rectangular to the loading direction
AA Cross section of the external leaf
I Moment of inertia for the non-cracked cross section
0.7 Decrease factor for cracking
sk Effective length

1 (4-28)
α λ = 1 for N cr ≥ N W ,0
2

N cr 1 (4-29)
αλ = 2 ⋅ for N cr < NW ,0
NW ,0 2

NW ,0 = AA ⋅ σ D , MW (4-30)

E⋅I (4-31)
N cr = 0.7 ⋅ π 2 ⋅
sk2

E ≈ 1,000 ⋅ σ D , MW (4-32)

Finally the masonry compression strength for the overall cross section
can be computed as
190 4 Masonry Strength

AA1 A A (4-33)
f mas = 0.75 ⋅ f mas ,c ,1 + 0.75 ⋅ f mas ,c,2 A 2 + 1.3 ⋅ f mas ,c,3 I .
A A A
As the last equation clearly shows for the external leafs, the
compression strength is decreased compared to a single-leaf masonry and
for the internal leaf, it is increased due to multi axial compression state.
However, practice has shown that the computation under common
conditions does not yield to a significant change in the compression
strength compared to a single-leaf cross-section assumption.

4.7 Shear Strength

As we have seen, it was already mentioned in the introduction that arch


bridges may not only fail due to the development of hinges and chains, but
sliding can also occur in the arch itself. To evaluate the permitted shear
stresses inside the masonry, the failure surfaces discussed in Chapter 3 can
be used. However, it is often desired to apply a more simple proof
comparable to the computation of the maximum compression strength of
the masonry.
Although Mann and Müller (Baier 1999) have developed an excellent
theory for the shear failure of natural stone masonry, the approach here by
Berndt (1996) will be recommended since this approach permits a
continuous technique in combination with the model for the computation
of the maximum compression force.
Identically to Mann and Müller (Baier 1999), Berndt (1996) has
introduced three regions of failure. These three regions can also be
compared to the shear failure of concrete beams.
The first region is simply the Coulombs friction:
τ = f HS + μ ⋅ σ x (4-34)

The second region is characterized by a tensile failure of the stones. The


comparable situation in reinforced concrete is the tensile tie failure under
shear force with an insufficient amount of reinforcement. The shear force
forms a plateau and can be computed with
1 + kσ (4-35)
fst ,c 2
max τ = ⋅ .
1.4 ⎛ f ⎞ ⎛ f ⎞
⎜⎜
st , c
+ 0.7 ⋅ kσ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ st ,c ⋅ kσ + 0.7 ⎟
f ⎟ ⎜f ⎟
⎝ st , sp ⎠ ⎝ st ,sp ⎠
4.8 Proof Equations 191

Finally, the third region describes the failure of the stones by compres-
sion. This can be compared to the compression strut failure in concrete
beams under high shear forces and high shear force reinforcement:

⎛ f st ,c ⎞ (4-36)
⎜ + 0.7 ⋅ kσ ⎟⎟ ⋅ f st ,c
1 ⎛ 1.4 ⋅ τ ⎞ ⎜⎝ f st , sp
2

f mas ,c ≈
f st ,c
− ⋅⎜ ⎠
⎟ ⋅ .
f st ,c 2 ⎜⎝ f st ,c ⎟⎠ 1 + kσ
⋅ kσ + 0.7
f st , sp 2

If the three equations are used to construct a failure curve, the following
figure can be drawn (Fig. 4-18).

Fig. 4-18. Failure curve for sandstone masonry under shear and axial forces

Very often, either the minimum or the maximum shear forces are under
discussion. According to the German code DIN 1053-1, only a maximum
shear stress of 0.3 MPa can be applied. However, other works have shown
that even the 5% fractile values of the maximum shear strength can reach
values up to 2 or 3 MPa (Baier 1999).

4.8 Proof Equations

The computed stresses can be used for static proofs in the limit state of the
ultimate load, and in the limit state of serviceability. However, the proof
concepts differ significantly according to the different generations of codes
of practice (Table 4-11). This is mainly based on different safety concepts
as later discussed in Chapter 7.
192 4 Masonry Strength

Table 4-11. Different proof concepts for structural elements under axial forces
Code of practice Loading ≤ resistance
EC 6 N d ≤ Rd
DIN 1053-2 γ ⋅σ R ≤ βR
DIN 1053-1 (Feb. 1990) σ ≤ zul σ D
DIN 1053-100 N d ≤ Rd

Currently, no special requirements exist in Germany for historical arch


bridges. Besides that, the German railway does not recommend the appli-
cation of nonlinear computations of the arch under serviceability. Interna-
tional codes, such as a former version of the Eurocode, with some special
remarks concerning proofs of historical arch bridges even for the limit
state of serviceability, can be found:
• The stress in the extreme fibre should not exceed 65% of the maximum
compression strength
• The computed deformations of the arch under the traffic load at the
vertex (crown) should not exceed 1/1000 of the arch span
The British BABTIE draft (Jackson 2004) recommends for the
serviceability proof:
• Crack depth lower than 0.25 × h
• Stress lower than 0.4 × fk
• No tensile forces under torsion and quasi-permanent loads
If proofs cannot be fulfilled for historical structures, in many cases it
does not mean that the structure shows insufficient safety. One has to
consider that the safety concepts as the basis of codes are mainly
concerned with modern structures. Therefore, as already mentioned in
Chapter 1, the safety concept may be altered, for existing structures. This
statement does not mean that historical structures or bridges can be less
safe, however the applied tools can differ.

References

Alfes C (1992) Spannungs-Dehnungsverhalten, Schwinden und Kriechen von


Sandsteinen. Jahresberichte Steinzerfall – Steinkonservierung 1992, Verlag
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin
Armaly M, Blasi C & Hannah L (2004) Stari Most: rebuilding more than a historic
bridge in Mostar. Museum International, Blackwell Publishing, No. 224, Vol.
56, No. 4, pp 6–17
References 193

Atkinson RH, Noland JL & Abrams DP (1985) A Deformation Failure Theory for
Stack-Bond Brick Masonry Prisms in Compression. Proceedings of the 7th
International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Melbourne
Baier G (1999) Statistische Auswertung von Schubversuchen an Sandsteinmauerwerk.
Diplomarbeit, Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl für Massivbau
Baronio G & Binda L (1991) Experimental approach to a procedure for the
investigation of historic mortars. Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13th–16th October 1991, Vol. 1, Berlin,
Germany, pp 1397–1405
Becker G & Bernard R (1991) Nichtlineare Spannungs-Dehnungs-Verläufe bei
Mauerwerk. Bautechnik 68, Heft 5, pp 5–15
Berndt E & Schöne I (1991) Tragverhalten von Natursteinmauerwerk aus
Elbesandstein. Sonderforschungsbereich 315, Universität Karlsruhe, Jahrbuch
1990
Berndt, E (1996) Zur Druck- und Schubfestigkeit von Mauerwerk – experimentell
nachgewiesen an Strukturen aus Elbsandstein. Bautechnik 73, Heft 4,
pp 222–234
Bökea H, Akkurtb S, İpekoğlua B & Uğurlua E (2006) Characteristics of brick
used as aggregate in historic brick-lime mortars and plasters. Cement and
Concrete Research, 36 (6), June 2006, pp 1115–1122
Börner K & Hill D (1999) Lexikon der Natursteine, CD-ROM, Abraxas Verlag
Boye A (1998) Einfluss der Steinbreite auf die Tragfähigkeit des einschaligen
Mauerwerks. Diplomarbeit, Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl für
Massivbau
COST 345 (2006) European Commission Directorate General Transport and
Energy: COST 345 – Procedures Required for Assessing Highway Structures:
Working Group 6 Report on remedial measures for highway structures.
http://cost345.zag.si/Reports/COST_345_WG6.pdf
Curbach M & Proske D (1998) Abschätzung des Verteilungstyps der
Mauerwerksdruckfestigkeit bei Sandsteinmauerwerk. Jahresmitteilungen
1998, Schriftenreihe des Institutes für Tragwerke und Baustoffe, Heft 7, TU
Dresden
Curbach M & Proske D (2003) Gutachten zur Ermittlung von Sicherheit-
selementen für die Biegetragfähigkeit von Granit-Steindeckern, Technische
Universität Dresden
Curbach M, Günther L & Proske D (2004) Sicherheitskonzept für Brücken aus
Granitsteindeckern. Mauerwerksbau, Heft 4, pp 138–141
Dienemann W & Burre O (1929) Die nutzbaren Gesteine Deutschlands und ihre
Lagerstätten mit Ausnahme der Kohlen, Erze und Salze. II. Band: Feste
Gesteine, Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart
DIN 1053-1 (1996) Mauerwerk – Teil 1: Berechnung und Ausführung. 11/1996
DIN 1053-100 (2004) Mauerwerk: Berechnung auf der Grundlage des
semiprobabilistischen Sicherheitskonzeptes. NABau im DIN/Beuth Verlag:
Berlin, 7/2004
DIN 18555 1-9 (1982) Prüfung von Mörteln mit mineralischen Bindemitteln.
12/1982
194 4 Masonry Strength

Domède N, Pons G, Sellier A & Fritih Y (2008) Mechanical behaviour of ancient


masonry. Materials and Structures. DOI 10.1617/s11527-008-9372-z
Ebner B (1996) Das Tragverhalten von mehrschaligem Bruchsteinmauerwerk im
regelmäßigen Schichtenverband. Berichte aus dem konstruktiven In-
genieurbau, Heft 24, TU Berlin
Eggermann R (1995) Tragverhalten mehrschaliger Mauerwerkskonstruktionen.
Dissertation, Aus Forschung und Lehre 29, Institut für Tragkonstruktionen,
Universität Karlsruhe
Francis AJ, Horman CB & Jerrems LE (1970) The Effect of Joint Thickness Other
Factors on the Compressive Strength of Brickwork, 2. International Brick
Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, England
Franken S & Müller HS (2001) Historische Mörtel und Reparaturmörtel.
Untersuchen, Bewerten, Einsetzen. Empfehlungen für die Praxis, Fritz
Wenzel und Joachim Kleinmanns (Hrsg) “Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
Bauwerke”. Karlsruhe
Franken S (1995) Die Frauenkirche zu Dresden. Zur Entwicklung geeigneter
Mörtel für den Wiederaufbau eines historischen Bauwerkes. In: Jahrbuch
(1993) des Sonderforschungsbereiches 315 “Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
Bauwerke”, 1995, pp 93–110
Frenzel M (2004) Untersuchung zur Quertragfähigkeit von Bogenbrücken aus
Natursteinmauerwerk. Diplomarbeit Technische Universität Dresden
Freyburg E (1994) Bausteine und Mörtel historischer Eisenbahnbrücken zwischen
Weißenfels und Weimar. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule für
Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar, 40, 5/6/7, pp 75–77
Gäbert C, Steuer A & Weiss K (1915) Die Nutzbaren Gesteinsvorkommen
Deutschlands. Verwitterung und Erhalt der Gesteine. Berlin Union Deutsche
Verlagsgesellschaft
Garbrecht G (1995) Meisterwerke antiker Hydrotechnik. Einblicke in die
Wissenschaft. B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart
Geological map of the Free state Saxony (1992) 1:400,000. Sächsisches
Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie, 3. Auflage, Freiberg
Glock C (2004) Traglast unbewehrter Beton- und Mauerwerkswände.
Nichtlineares Berechnungsmodell und konsistentes Bemessungskonzept für
schlanke Wände unter Druckbeanspruchung. Institut für Massivbau,
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Heft 9, Darmstadt
Gucci N & Barsotti R (1995) A non-destructive technique for the determination of
mortar load capacity in situ. Materials and Structures, 28, pp 276–283
Herrbach S (1996) Sicherung historischen Mauerwerks am Beispiel des Schlosses
in Schönfeld. Diplomarbeit, Technische Universität Dresden, Institut für
Massivbau
Hilsdorf H (1969) Investigation into the Failure Mechanism of Brick Masonry
Loaded in Axial Compression. Proceedings of International Conference on
Masonry Structural Systems, Houston, Texas, pp 34–41
Huesmann M & Knöfel D (1991) Mörteluntersuchungen von historischem
Mauerwerk am Beispiel der Michaelskirche Fulda. In: Proceedings of the 9th
International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13th–16th October 1991, Vol.
1, Berlin, Germany, pp 1406–1411
References 195

Huster U (2000) Tragverhalten von einschaligem Natursteinmauerwerk unter


zentrischer Druckbeanspruchung: Entwicklung und Anwendung eines Finite-
Elemente-Programmes. Kassel University Press, Kassel
Jackson P (2004) Highways Agency BD on New Masonry Arch Bridges. 27th
February 2004. http://www.smart.salford.ac.uk/February_2004_Meeting.php
Khoo CL & Hendry AW (1972) A Failure Criterion for Brickwork in Axial
Compression. The British Ceramic Research Association, Technical Note, No.
179
Knöfel D & Middendorf B (1991) Chemisch-mineralogische Mörteluntersuchungen
an historischen Ziegelgebäuden in Norddeutschland. In: Proceedings of the
9th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13.–16. October 1991,
Vol. 1, Berlin, Germany, pp 1420–1427
Knöfel D & Schubert P (1991) Zur Beurteilung von Mörtel für historische
Bauwerke. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Brick/Block Masonry
Conference, 13.–16. October 1991, Vol. 1, Berlin, Germany, pp 1412–1419
Lissai, F (1986) Elastisch-plastisches Verhalten von Mauerwerks-Wandscheiben,
die in ihrer Ebene vertikal und horizontal belastet sind. Bautechnik, Heft 1,
pp 7–17
Mann W (1983) Druckfestigkeit von Mauerwerk: Eine statistische Auswertung
von Versuchsergebnissen in geschlossener Darstellung mit Hilfe von
Potenzfunktionen, Mauerwerk-Kalender 1983, pp 687–699
Mann W (1991) Grundlagen der Bemessung von Mauerwerk unter vertikaler
Belastung und Knicken nach dem Entwurf zu Eurocode EC 6 und Vergleich
mit Versuchsergebnissen. Proceedings of the 9th International Brick/Block
Masonry Conference, 13–16 Oct. 1991, Vol 1, Berlin, Germany, pp 1281–1291
Meskouris K, Butenweg C, Mistler M & Kuhlmann W (2004) Seismic Behaviour
of Historic Masonry Buildings. In Proceeding of 7th National Congress on
Mechanics of HSTAM, Chania, Crete, Greece
Müller B (1977) Beiträge zur Geschichte der Natursteinindustrie in der
Sächsischen Oberlausitz. Abhandlungen des Staatlichen Museums für
Mineralogie und Geologie zu Dresden. Band 27, Dresden, pp 111–142
Ohler A (1986) Zur Berechnung der Druckfestigkeit von Mauerwerk unter
Berücksichtigung der mehrachsigen Spannungszustände in Stein und Mörtel.
Bautechnik, Heft 5, pp 163–169
Papayianni I & Stefanidou M (2003) Mortars for intervention in monuments and
historical buildings. Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage
Architecture VIII, CA Brebbia (Ed), WIT-Press, Southampton, pp 57–64
Pauser A (2005) Ingenieurbüro: Guide to the high-level assessment of masonry
arch bridges. UIC Report (draft)
Peschel A (1984) Natursteine der DDR – Kompendium petrographischer,
petrochemischer, petrophysikalischer und gesteinstechnischer Eigenschaften.
Beilage zur Dissertation (B) an der Bergakademie Freiberg, Januar 1984
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung alter Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
Purtak F (2001) Tragfähigkeit von schlankem Mauerwerk. Dissertation.
Technische Universität Dresden, Fakultät Architektur
196 4 Masonry Strength

Purtak F, Geißler K & Lieberwirth P (2007) Bewertung bestehender


Natursteinbogenbrücken. Bautechnik 8, Heft 8, pp 525–543
Ril 805 (1999) Richtlinie 805: Tragsicherheit bestehender Eisenbahnbrücken
Rustmeier HG (1982) Untersuchungen über Einflüsse auf die Drucktragfähigkeit
von Bruchsteinmauerwerk. Dissertation, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt,
Darmstadt
Sabha A & Schöne I (1994) Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von Mauerwerk
aus Elbsandstein. Bautechnik 71, Heft 3, pp 161–166
Sabha A & Weigert A (1996) Einfluss der Steinhöhe auf das Tragverhalten
einschaligen Mauerwerkes. Sonderdruck SFB 315, Erhalten historisch
bedeutsamer Bauwerke, Jahrbuch 1995, Verlag für Architektur und technische
Wissenschaften, Berlin
Schnackers PJH (1973) Mauerwerk und seine Berechnung. Dissertation, TH
Aachen
Schubert P (2004) Eigenschaftswerte von Mauerwerk, Mauersteinen und
Mauermörtel. Mauerwerk-Kalender 1994, Verlag Ernst und Sohn, Berlin, pp
129–141
Schulenberg W (1982) Theoretische Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von
zentrisch gedrücktem Mauerwerk aus künstlichen Steinen unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Qualität der Lagerfugen, Dissertation, TH Darmstadt
Fachbereich Architektur
Simon E (2002) Schubtragverhalten von Mauerwerk aus großformatigen Steinen.
Dissertation, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt
Stein A (1993) Bemessung von Natursteinfassaden. Rudolf Müller Verlag, Köln
Stiglat K (1984) Zur Tragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk aus Sandstein. Bautechnik 2,
pp 54–59 and Bautechnik 3, pp 94–100
Straub H (1992) Die Geschichte der Bauingenieurkunst. Ein Überblick von der
Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel
UIC-Codex (1995) Empfehlungen für die Bewertung des Tragvermögens
bestehender Gewölbebrücken aus Mauerwerk und Beton. Internationaler
Eisenbahnverband. 1. Ausgabe 1.7.1995
Van der Vlist AA, Bakker MM, Heijnen WJ, Roelofs HJJ & Oosterhoff J (1998)
Bruggen in Nederland 1800–1940. Bruggen van beton, steen en hout.
Nedelandse Bruggen Stichting – Uitgeverij Matrijs
van Hees RPJ, Binda L, Papayianni I & Toumbakari E (2004) Characterisation
and damage analysis of old mortars. Materials and Structures, 37, November
2004, pp 644–648
Verstrynge E, Schueremans L & Van Gemert D (2008) Life time expectancy of
historical masonry structures subjected to creep – a probabilistic approach.
Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop, CA Graubner, H
Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt 2008
Walthelm U (1990) Rissbildungen und Bruchmechanismen in freistehenden
Wänden aus Beton und Mauerwerk. Bautechnik 67, Heft 1, pp 21–26
Warnecke P (1995) Tragverhalten und Konsolidierung von historischem
Natursteinmauerwerk. Dissertation, Technische Universität Braunschweig
Warnecke P (1997) Biegedruckfähigkeit von historischem Mauerwerk – Modelle
und Anwendung. Konsolidierung von historischem Natursteinmauerwerk, 6.
References 197

und 7. Nov. 1997, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institut für


Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz Heft 135, Braunschweig, pp 13–28
Warnecke P, Rostasy FS & Budelmann H (1995) Tragverhalten und Konsolidierung
von Wänden und Stützen aus historischem Natursteinmauerwerk.
Mauerwerkskalender 1995, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp 623–685
Wedler B (1997) Einfluss der Füllungsschichtung auf das Tragverhalten des
mehrschaligen Mauerwerks in historischen Bauwerken. Diplomarbeit.
Technische Universität Dresden. Lehrstuhl für Massivbau
Weigert A (1996) Untersuchung zum Einfluss der Steinhöhe auf das
Tragverhalten des einschaligen Mauerwerks aus Elbsandstein. Diplomarbeit.
Lehrstuhl für Massivbau. Technische Universität Dresden
Wenzel F (Ed) (1997) Mauerwerk – Untersuchen und Instandsetzen durch
Injizieren, Vernadeln und Vorspannen. Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
Bauwerke. Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Sonderforschungsbereich 315,
Universität Karlsruhe
Wisser S & Knöfel D (1988) Untersuchungen an historischen Putz- und
Mauermörteln: Bautenschutz und Bausanierung 11, Nr 5, pp 163–171
5 Investigation Techniques

“Here and elsewhere, we shall not obtain the best insight


into things until we see them growing from the beginning.”

Aristotle, taken from Vanmarcke (1997)

5.1 Introduction

The preparation of input data for the numerical modelling of the arch
bridges is a major part of the investigation of arch bridges: a sophisticated
numerical model is without much worth if the quality of the input data is
rather low. Therefore, the observation of the existing structure is of utmost
importance to understand such a structure. Even further, numerical models
and structural observation interact with each other. Whereas for new
structures the choice of the static system is part of the design process, for
existing structures the situation is different: here the static system has to be
identified. Usually in the beginning of such an observation, only very
limited knowledge is accessible. However, with the first numerical models
the required input data and the zones of interest for observation are
identified and investigated. This should improve the numerical model
yielding to further refinement of the interesting parameters. Lourenço
(2001) has described the initial state with the following:
• Important geometrical properties are unknown
• Information about the internal construction is unknown or limited
• The material properties are often unknown or difficult to identify
• The type of construction is unknown
• Possible damages are unknown
• The design basis of the structure is unknown and modern codes are
usually not applicable
• The parameters show significant deviations, either due to the former
construction type or due to the use of natural construction materials
(Goretzky 2000, Franke, Deckelmann and Goretzky 1991 and Kirtschig
1991)

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_5,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
200 5 Investigation Techniques

Therefore, to provide a realistic description of the structure, a structural


observation is compulsive. Different technologies can be used for such an
observation and are listed in Table 5-1. Further techniques are summarized
in Schueremans and Van Gemert (2001), Wenzel and Kahle (1993), Kaplan
(1997), Colla (1997), Silman and Ennis (1993), Prieto et al. (2006), and
Orbán et al. (2008). In general, the observation techniques are classified
into destructive, semidestructive and nondestructive identification methods.
Bién and Kamiński (2007) relate certain damages to certain investigation
types (Table 5-2).

Table 5-1. Listing of certain techniques to evaluate historical masonry structures


(Schueremans et al. 2003, Wenzel and Kahle 1993, Kaplan 1997, Silman and Ennis
1993, Prieto et al. 2006, and Orbán et al. 2008)
Technique Degree of Location General principle and application field
destruction
Historic NDT IS and Historical documents often include
research IL worthwhile information about the con-
struction technology, used materials, and
the geometry. Very often it is useful not
only to investigate files but also to contact
local history association
Visual NDT IS Visual inspection is compelling since it is
inspection cheap and the most efficient nondestructive
test method. It can be extended by monitor-
ing systems or geomarking tools
Photogrammetry NDT IS Photogrammetry can be used to identify
any type of deformations including discon-
tinuities. In recent years, not only
photogrammetry but also other techniques
such as laser scanning and laser interfer-
ence techniques have been applied and
they have yielded extraordinary results
Electric NDT IS This method can be applied to achieve in-
resistivity formation about the overall conditions of
the masonry such as cavities and layering
Radiography NDT IS The application of strong ionizing radiation,
mainly gamma rays, can be used to identify
not only the steel elements in the structure,
but also the cavities and other types of dis-
continuities. However, safety considera-
tions limit the applicability under practical
conditions
5.1 Introduction 201

Technique Degree of Location General principle and application field


destruction
Infrared NDT IS Identification of layering of the structure
thermography and further discontinuities
Magnetic NDT IS Identification of steel or iron elements in-
methods side the masonry blocks
Radar NDT IS Radar can give indications about certain
types of discontinuities such as cavities
Mechanical NDT IS Waves are introduced to the material. The
pulse velocity wave velocity gives information about the
integrity and density of the material
Ultrasonic NDT IS Waves are introduced to the material.
Again, information about not only the den-
sity, but also the humidity and discontinui-
ties can be gained. Limited application of
masonry
Vibration tests NDT IS Investigation of the stiffness of the struc-
tural elements
Endoscopy SDT and IS After drilling, endoscopy can be used to
NDT investigate the internal structure. In most
cases, it is combined with video taping
Flat jack SDT IS Determination of the stress-strain relation-
ship, also sometimes used for the identifi-
cation of the maximum compressive
strength
Proof loading NDT IS Testing of load of some structural parts. It
increases the certainty about the applied
numerical models but may cause some
slight damage
Monitoring NDT IS Permanent measurement of certain struc-
tural parameters
Amount of destruction: DT – destructive test; SDT – semi-destructive test;
NDT – non-destructive test
Location of test: IS – in situ; IL – in labo.
202 5 Investigation Techniques

Table 5-2. Application of nondestructive tests (NDT) and minor-destructive tests


(MDT) for the investigation of damages to masonry bridges (Bién and Kamiński
2007)
Test Degradation mechanism Damage type

Loos of material
contamination

Displacement
discontinuity
deformation
destruction
Basic methods
Visual inspections
Direct geometric measurements
Sclerometric test
NDT Acoustic and stress wave methods
Acoustic emission measurement
Impact echo test
Parallel seismic method
Ultrasonic echo test
Electrical and electromagnetic methods
Electrical conductivity measurement
Ground penetrating radar
Thermal heat transfer methods
Pulse-phase thermography
Transient thermography
Proof load tests
Dynamic test
Static tests
Boroscopy
Flat-jack test
MDT Pull out test
Specimen test – chemical
Specimen test – mechanical

5.2 Destructive Tests

Besides geometrical parameters, the numerical models require data from


the material properties. Such material properties are often measured on test
specimens. The specimens have to be separated from the original struc-
tures. A wide literature for the extraction of test specimens from historical
masonry propagating many different techniques can be found.
For example, Stiglat (1984) recommends the extraction of unnecessary
stones from the structure. However, under realistic conditions, it is difficult to
5.2 Destructive Tests 203

identify elements of the structure that can be confiscated without restriction of


the functionality of the structure. Furthermore, only visible alterations of a his-
torical structure are often prohibited due to conservation regulations of
monuments and historic buildings (Budelmann 1997, Wenzel 1997a, b).
Therefore, in many cases, drilling of cores has to be carried out. Although
this type of material extraction is often criticized due to uncertainties about
the process (Stiglat 1984 and Berndt and Schöne 1990), the technology is
simple to apply even under difficult conditions, for example under water.
Furthermore, the drillings not only allow the extraction of material but also
provide geometrical data about the internal structure. Additionally, the visual
disturbance of the structure due to drillings is rather limited since only the di-
ameter of the drilling machine has to be substituted on the structure surface.
Besides the material excavation, drilling also provides data from the
process alone. For example, the volume of cooling water during the drill-
ing process permits conclusions about the pore volume in the masonry. Fi-
nally, drilling can be combined with endoscopy, which allows visual views
inside the structure. After the material has been used for material testing,
the data can be compared with the drilling protocols.
The diameter of the core drilling depends on different conditions. In
general, from the material investigation point of view, drilling diameters
should be rather great to achieve characteristic material property data. For
example, Stiglat (1984) recommends a minimum diameter of 20 cm for
natural stone masonry walls. However, such big diameters are often not
applicable due to visual disturbance of the structure, increased breaking
rate of the cores to the high friction, and simply drilling costs or drilling
conditions. Therefore, under practical conditions, often diameters in the
range of 10–15 cm are used. Under specific conditions, diameters of 5 cm
are also used; however, the measured material data may then be of re-
stricted use. Wenzel (1997b) recommends minimum diameters of 3 cm for
brick stones and 5 cm for natural stones.
After the drilling process, the drilling cores are visually observed (Fig. 5-1).
The observation is used to create a drilling profile, for example, identifying
layer thickness, rough material estimation, and identification of hollow
sections. The layers are then classified according to the size and number of
material pieces (lumpy, small sized) (DIN 4022 1987). Based on the classi-
fication, possible test specimens for material testing can be marked on the
cores. The specimens are then sawed out. However, sawing requires cool-
ing water and the water can influence some material properties. It can even
prevent the production of test specimens. The material can also be used for
chemical, petrographic (Fig. 5-2), spectrographic, and microscopic investi-
gations (Fig. 5-3).
A description of drilling investigations at a historical arch bridge can be
found in Aoki et al. (2004) or Proske (2003).
204 5 Investigation Techniques

Fig. 5-1. Example of drilling cores. See also the marking of test specimen for
material property tests

Fig. 5-2. Different sandstone varieties taken from one historical arch bridge

Fig. 5-3. X-ray microscope picture of historical masonry material


5.4 Non-destructive Test Methods 205

5.3 Semi-destructive Test Methods

According to Forde (1996), the semidestructive test methods, sometimes


also called minor-destructive test methods, can be distinguished into
• Pull-out tests
• Pull-off tests
• Penetration tests (Windsor-Probe, Schmidt hammer)
For further information, refer Corps of Engineers (2002).

5.4 Non-destructive Test Methods

A classification of nondestructive tests can be found in Corps of Engineers


(2002), Orbán et al. (2008), and Bungey (1997). Nondestructive test methods
can provide the following information about arch bridges (Forde 1996):
• Type and construction of the springing
• Thickness of the arch
• Type of backfill and existence of vaults inside the backfill
• Density of the backfill
Astudillo (1996) presents nondestructive investigation methods for the
examination of bridges. Colla et al. (1997) report about nondestructive techni-
ques on stone masonry bridges. Bensalem et al. (1998) use nondestructive
investigation methods for the estimation of the safety factor decrease. Aoki
et al. (2004) and Binda and Saisi (2001) have used nondestructive tech-
niques for the investigation of masonry. With regard to masonry, the Euro-
pean research project ONSITEMASONRY should be mentioned, which
focused on development of nondestructive and semidestructive investiga-
tion techniques for masonry (Wendrich et al. 2004, Maierhofer et al. 2003,
and Köpp et al. 2005). During the sustainable bridge project of the EU,
nondestructive tests for the assessment of bridges were also evaluated
(Helmerich and Niederleithinger 2006 and Niederleithinger et al. 2006).
Recently, Orbán et al. (2008) showed some application for historical arch
bridges.

5.4.1 Ultrasound

The application of ultrasound for the investigation of historical masonry or


stone structures has found wide application. As examples, the works by
Schubert et al. (2002) and Müller and Garke (2005) should be mentioned.
206 5 Investigation Techniques

The general idea is simple: the denser a material is or better the material
joints are, the better mechanical waves can spread out in the material. The
application of ultrasound uses this effect. For the investigation, sound waves
in a frequency range between 46 and 350 kHz are introduced in the material
investigated. The waves are then registered at a different location. The time
difference between the sending and the reception of the waves is measured
and the velocity of the ultrasonic waves is then computed. The sound veloc-
ity depends on certain material parameters, such as the material structure and
the amount of pores. Furthermore, humidity or watering conditions of the
material can influence the ultrasonic velocity. Due to these effects, a drop in
the wave velocity may have different causes, which under practical condi-
tions may restrict the application of ultrasonic techniques.

5.4.2 Impact-echo

The impact-echo technique is strongly related to the application of ultra-


sonic waves. In contrast, here a hammer is used to apply shock waves to
the material. The echo is again measured with receivers. If material defects
occur in the structural material, then the echo-impulses are decreased in
comparison to homogenous materials (Leaird 1984).
Values for average ultrasonic velocities are given in Table 5-3.
According to Forde (1996), the frequency range lies between 1 kHz and
300 Hz. Forde (1996) has already used the impact-echo technique for in-
vestigations of the springings and abutments of historical arch bridges.

Table 5-3. Examples of ultrasonic velocity in different materials according to


Forde (1996)
Material Average ultrasonic velocity in m/s
High quality brick masonry 3,100
Low quality brick masonry 2,500–2,700
Structural concrete >4,500
Granite masonry piers 3,300–3,500
Red sandstone piers 1,970
Yellow sandstone piers 2,040
White sandstone piers 1,700
Steel bar 5,100
Steel body 6,100
Dry sandy ground 200–300
Dry sandy clay 400–600
Water saturated clay 1,300–2,400
Water 1,430–1,680
Limestone and dolomite 4,000–6,000
5.4 Non-destructive Test Methods 207

5.4.3 Radar

The application of radar technology for masonry and masonry arch bridges
is strongly related to the development of ground penetration radar. This ra-
dar has been widely applied for the investigation of ground structures.
Based on the experience gained there, the technique has also been applied
for archeological investigations, for the investigation of structures in the
ground, and for investigation of buried vaults and foundation rests. Exam-
ples are given in Kahle and Illich (1992), Illich (1999), BAM (2006a,
b), Wiggenhauser and Maierhofer (2002), Cameron et al. (2008), and
Wenzel (1997b).
During a radar investigation, waves (now radar waves) are also entered
into the structure. If the waves hit irregularities such as separated surfaces,
change in the salt content and humidity, hollow cavities, or metal elements
inside the element, then the waves are reflected. Since the sender and re-
ceiver are usually assembled jointly into one case, the intensity and the
running time of the waves can be used to compute the depth of the reflec-
tion zone.
The radar case is moved slowly over the surface of the structural ele-
ment to achieve not only results at some certain points, but also to cover
surfaces. Using the depth information, three-dimensional maps can be pre-
pared.
Very often 1 GHz antennas are used. Such antennas reach a penetration
depth of 1.0–1.5 m. The resolution depends on the frequency and reaches 3
cm for 1 GHz. For masonry arch bridges, lower frequencies in the range of
100 MHz are often used according to Forde (1996). Here, radar investiga-
tions are mainly used to identify hollow sections inside piers or walls, to
find cracks, and to estimate the salt content and the water content (Forde
1996). Clark et al. (2003a, b) describe the application of radar and infrared
for the humidity investigation.
To give an impression about the quality of radar and ultrasonic investi-
gations, Table 5-4 lists the results of such an investigation. The table also
includes the achieved maximum flexural bending stress of the granite
stone material investigated. The measured wave velocities and found ir-
regularities are already transferred into qualitative statements about the
flexural bending strength. All methods find the one weak stone (Nr. 1),
however for the other stones the results are inconsistent.
208 5 Investigation Techniques

Table 5-4. Comparison of the flexural bending strength of granite stone material
and the results from radar and ultrasonic investigation
Test Qualitative statement Qualitative state- Qualitative state- Maximum
number about the strength ment about the ment about the flexural bend-
according to strength according strength according ing strength
ultrasonic test 1 to ultrasonic test 2 to radar test in MPa
1 Low Low Low 4.23
2 Average to good – Good to very good 9.66
3 Average to good Good to very good Good to very good 12.70
4 Good to very good Low to average Average to good 9.53
5 Good to very good – Low strength 10.21

5.4.4 Tomography

Cote (1996) presents the tomographical investigation of a pier of the


Bridge Le Pont-Neuf in Paris. At first, 20 single-spot tomographical meas-
urements were taken on the pregrouted pier. Based on that data, a spatial
picture of the velocity distribution of ultrasonic waves inside the pier was
constructed. Then the velocity was translated into the density of the mate-
rial. The results showed a very inhomogeneous limestone inside the pier.
In the next step, the pier was grouted and again investigated tomographi-
cally. As the result of the grouting, the more homogeneous density field
was found. Computer tomography as presented by Schulze and Hampel
(2004) may only be used for some small structural elements.

5.4.5 Thermography

Thermography can be used to identify hollow sections and humidity inside


masonry walls (Orbán et al. 2008). However, the technique is used more
for buildings than for bridges.

5.4.6 Electrical Conductivity

Conductivity tests can be used for salinity and stone thickness investiga-
tions (Forde 1996 and Helmerich et al. 2008).

5.4.7 Experimental Tests on Bridges on Site

Besides the introduced techniques, there exists finally the possibility to apply
a load test on the arch bridge on site. Basic works for such experimental
5.4 Non-destructive Test Methods 209

ultimate load-bearing tests can be found in Optiz and Steffens. However,


some examples of application for historical arch bridges should be men-
tioned here.
Mildner (1996) describes load tests and deformation measurements of
the Schrote Bridge and the Anna-Ebert Bridge in Magdeburg. Further tests
by Milder can be found in Mildner and Mildner (2001). Vockrodt and
Schwesinger (2002) have also carried out experimental load-bearing tests
on historical arch bridges. Steffens (2001), Gutermann and Steffens
(2005), Burkert and Steffens (2008), and Gutermann (2002) give recom-
mendations about the application of in situ load tests and show examples.
Fanning and Boothby (2003) also report about load tests on arch bridges.
Bolle (2005) describes the permanent observation of a viaduct. Slowik et
al. (2005) and Slowik (2004) also report on load testing on vault bridges
and the development of the numerical model based on the data. Domède
and Sellier (2008) have also carried out measurements and have used it to
create an FEM model. Hughes and Pritchard (1998) have published on in
situ measurement of masonry arch bridges. Armstrong et al. (1995a) have
carried out dynamic measurements on arch bridges and have continued with
modal analyses (Armstrong et al. 1995b). Measurement under load was also
done by Bién et al. (2008), Prader et al. (2008), and Rücker et al. (2006).
Measurement of fill pressure was done by Ponniah and Prentice (1999).
Fibre optic sensors can also be applied for strain measurements on arch
bridges (Inaudi and Glisic 2008).

5.4.8 Photogrammetry and Lasercanning

During the observation of arch bridges under load, certain different meth-
ods can be applied to receive the deformations data. Photogrammetry is
one of the contact-free techniques (Hampel and Maas 2003). Albert and
Seyler (2004), for example, have used photogrammetry for the investiga-
tion of arch bridge deformations.
A second technique is laser scanning. Laser scanning is not only used to
scan snow covers in the mountains now (Prokop 2007) but also widely ap-
plied since a few years for the capture of structural geometries (Ehmann
2000, Mönicke 2003).
210 5 Investigation Techniques

References

Albert J & Seyler S (2004) Verformungsmessungen an Brückenbauwerken aus


Bildsequenzen, 14th International Conference on Engineering Surveying
Zürich, 15.–19. März 2004
Aoki T, Komiyama D, Sabia D & Rivella R (2004) Theoretical and Experimental
Dynamic Analysis of Rakanji Stone Arch Bridge, Honyabakei, Oita, Japan,
Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control
MOvIC’04, St. Louis, 8.-11. August, 2004, pp 9 (CD-ROM)
Aoki T, Komiyama T, Tanigawa Y, Hatanaka S, Yuasa N, Hamasaki H, Chiorino
MA & Roccati R (2004) Non-destructive Testing of the Sanctuary of Vico-
forte, Proceedings of 13th International Brick and Block Masonry Confer-
ence, Amsterdam, July 4–7, 2004, Vol. 4, pp 1109–1118
Armstrong DM, Sibbald A & Forde MC (1995a) Integrity assessment of masonry
arch bridges using the dynamic stiffness technique. NDT & E International,
28 (6), pp 367–375
Armstrong DM, Sibbald A, Fairfield CA & Forde MC (1995b) Modal analysis for
masonry arch bridge spandrel wall separation identification. NDT & E
International, 28 (6), pp 377–386
Astudillo R (1996) Use of nondestructive methods for bridge auscultation in
Spain. Recent Advances in Bridge Engineering. Evaluation, Management and
Repair. Proceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, or-
ganized by the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa State Univer-
sity, Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for Numerical Methods
in Engineering CIMNE, pp 202–213
BAM (2006a) http://www.bam.de/service/publikationen/zfp_kompendium/
geraete/g050/g050_L.html 2006
BAM (2006b) http://www.ndt.net/article/dgzfp01/papers/p45/fig4_6.htm
Bensalem A, Ali-Ahmed H, Fairfield CA & Sibbald A (1998) NDT as a tool for
detection of gradual safety factor deterioration in loaded arches. Arch Bridges:
History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the
Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A. Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9.
October 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 271–277
Berndt E & Schöne I (1990) Tragverhalten von Natursteinmauerwerk aus
Elbesandstein. Sonderforschungsbereich 315, Universität Karlsruhe, Jahrbuch
1990
Bień J & Kamiński T (2007) Damages to masonry arch bridges – proposal for
terminology unification. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Con-
ference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, DV Oliveira & A Portela (Eds), 12–
14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 341–348
Bién J, Kamiński T & Trela C (2008) Numerical analysis of old masonry bridges
supported by field tests. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health
Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis
Group, London, pp 2384–2391
Binda L & Saisi A (2001) Non destructive testing applied to historic buildings:
The case of some Sicilian Churches. Historical Constructions, PB Lourenço &
P Roca (Eds), University of Minho, Guimarães, pp 29–46
References 211

Bolle G (2005) Dauerüberwachung am Chemnitztalviadukt – eine innovative


Lösung zur Datenanalyse und Zustandsbewertung. 3. Symposium
Experimentelle Untersuchung von Baukonstruktionen, Technische Universität
Dresden
Budelmann H (1997) Zustandserfassung und -beurteilung historischer
Mauerwerke. Konsolidierung von historischem Natursteinmauerwerk, 6–7.
November 1997, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institut für Baustoffe,
Massivbau und Brandschutz Heft 135, Braunschweig, pp 53–66
Bungey, J (1997) Non-destructive testing in civil engineering. In: Proceedings of
the International Conference in Civil Engineering, JH Bungey (Ed), Liver-
pool, 08.–11. April 1997, The British Institute of NDT, Northampton 1997,
Vol. 1 and 2
Burkert T & Steffens K (2008) Instandsetzung und Ertüchtigung von Mauerwerk,
Teil 7: Experimentelle Bestimmung der Tragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk,
Belastungsversuche an Mauerwerksbauten in situ, Mauerwerk-Kalender 2009,
W Jäger (Ed), Ernst und Sohn, Berlin
Cameron J, Demoulin C, Diamanti N, Giannopoulos A & Forde MC (2008) As-
pects of GPR testing of masonry arch bridges. Structural Faults + Repair-
2008: 12th International Conference, MC Forde (Ed), Edinburgh, 10th–12th
June 2008
Clark MR, Parsons P, Hull T & Forde MC (2003a) Case study of radar laboratory
work on the masonry arch bridge. Extending the Life of Bridges, Concrete
and Composites Buildings, Masonry and Civil Structures, MC Forde (Ed),
The Commonwealth Institute, London, 1st–3rd July 2003
Clark MR, Parsons P, Hull T & Forde MC (2003b) Laboratory study of infrared
thermography on masonry arch bridges. Extending the Life of Bridges, Con-
crete and Composites Buildings, Masonry and Civil Structures, MC Forde
(Ed), The Commonwealth Institute, London, 1st–3rd July 2003
Colla C (1997) NDT of masonry arch bridges, PhD Thesis, The University of
Edinburgh, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Edinburgh
Colla C, Das, PC, McCann D & Forde MC (1997) Sonic, electromagnetic and im-
pulse radar investigation of stone masonry bridges. NDT&E International, 30
(4), pp 249–254
Corps of Engineers (2002). Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques, Chapter 10,
TM 5-809-3/NAVFAC DM-2.9/AFM 88-3
Cote P (1996) NDT applied to concrete and masonry bridges. Recent Advances in
Bridge Engineering. Evaluation, Management and Repair. Proceedings of the
US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, JR Casas, FW Klaiber & AR
Marí (Eds), Organized by the Technical University of Catalonia and the Iowa
State University, Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for Nu-
merical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 192–201
DIN 4022 (1987) Part 1–3: Baugrund und Grundwasser; Benennen und
Beschreiben von Boden und Fels; Schichtenverzeichnis für Bohrungen
mit/ohne durchgehende Gewinnung von gekernten Proben im Boden und Fels
(Fest- und Lockergestein), September 1987
212 5 Investigation Techniques

Domède N & Sellier A (2008) Assessment method of masonry arch bridges.


Structural faults + Repair-2008: 12th International Conference, MC Forde
(Ed), 10th–12th June 2008, Edinburgh, UK
Ehmann D (2000) Untersuchung und Erprobung der zielmarkierungsfreien
Deformationsmessung an Bauwerken im Nahbereich. Diplomarbeit, HfT
Stuttgart, Fb. Vermessung und Geoinformatik
Fanning PJ & Boothby TE (2003) Experimentally-based assessment of masonry
arch bridges. Bridge Engineering, 156 (3), September 2003, pp 109–116
Forde MC (1996) Non-destructive evaluation of bridges: research in progress. Re-
cent Advances in Bridge Engineering. Evaluation, management and repair.
Proceedings of the US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, JR Casas,
FW Klaiber, AR Marí (Eds), Organized by the Technical University of Cata-
lonia and the Iowa State University, Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, Interna-
tional Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 127–152
Franke I, Deckelmann G & Goretzky W (1991) Einfluss der Streubreite der
Materialeigenschaften auf die Tragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk – Theoretische
und Experimentelle Untersuchungen. In: Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13.–16. October 1991, Vol. 1, Berlin,
Germany, pp 180–187
Goretzky W (2000) Tragfähigkeit druckbeanspruchten Mauerwerks aus
festigkeits- und verformungsstreuenden Mauersteinen und -mörteln.
Dissertation GCA Verlag Herdecke
Gutermann M & Steffens K (2005) Belastungsversuche zur Bausubstanzerhaltung.
3. Symposium Experimentelle Untersuchung von Baukonstruktionen, Techni-
sche Universität Dresden
Gutermann M (2002) Ein Beitrag zur experimentell gestützten Tragsicherheitsbe-
wertung von Massivbrücken. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
Hampel U & Maas H-G (2003) Application of digital photogrammetry for meas-
uring deformation and cracks during load tests in civil engineering material
testing. In: 6th Conference on Optical 3-D Measurement Techniques. Prof. A.
Grün, Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Zürich, 22–25.9.2003, Vol. II, pp 80–88
Helmerich R & Niederleithinger E (2006) NDT-toolbox for the Inspection of
Railway Bridges. Sustainable Bridges Project – Assessment for Future Traffic
Demands and Longer Lives.
Helmerich R, Niederleithinger E, Trela C, Bien J & Bernardini G (2008) Complex
multi-tool inspection of a masonry arch bridge using non-destructive testing.
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and Informat-
ics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
3716–3723
Hughes TG & Pritchard R (1998) In situ measurement of dead and live load
stresses in a masonry arch. Engineering Structures, 20 (1–2), pp 5–13
Illich B (1999) Zerstörungsfreie Zustandserfassung an Mauer- und Betonbauteilen
mit Radar. DGZfP-Berichtsband 66-CD, Vortrag 9, 21.–22. Januar 1999 in
der Neuen Messe München. pp 89–93
References 213

Inaudi D & Glisic B (2008) Overview of 40 bridge monitoring projects using fiber
optic sensors. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring
and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 2514–2521
Kahle M & Illich B (1992) Erkundung historischen Mauerwerks mit Radar. 3.
Internationales Kolloquium für Werkstoffwissenschaften und Bausanierung,
Ehningen, pp 379–393
Kaplan ME (1997) Non-destructive evaluation techniques for masonry
construction (Masonry), U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service,
Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services
Kirtschig K (1991) Zur Beschreibung der Mauerwerksdruckfestigkeit über die
mittlere oder charakteristische Steindruckfestigkeit. In: Proceedings of the 9th
International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13.–16. October 1991, Vol. 1,
Berlin, Germany, pp 196–201
Köpp C, Maierhofer C & Wendrich A (2005) Entwicklung zerstörungs-freier und
zerstörungsarmer Prüfverfahren zur Untersuchung historischen Mauerwerks.
Mauerwerk 9, Heft 3, pp 102–107
Leaird JD (1984) A report on the pulsed acoustic emission technique applied to
masonry, Journal of Acoustic Emission, 3 (4), pp 204–210
Lourenço PB (2001) Analysis of historical constructions: From thrust-lines to ad-
vance simulations. Historical Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds),
University of Minho, Guimarães, pp 91–116
Maierhofer C, Wendrich A & Köpp C (2003) ONSITEFORMASONRY – A
European Research Project: On-site investigation techniques for the structural
evaluation of historic masonry, DGZfP (Ed) International Symposium Non-
Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) in Berlin, Germany, Sep-
tember 16–19, 2003, Proceedings on BB 85-CD, V70, Berlin
Mildner K & Mildner A (2001) Bauwerksmessungen vor und nach der
Instandsetzung einer Eisenbahn-Gewölbebrücke und statische Modellbildung.
Ehrenkolloquium Prof. Dr.-Ing. Möller zum 60. Geburtstag, Lehrstuhl für
Statik und Dynamik der Tragwerke, Technische Universität Dresden, 2001,
Dresden
Mildner K (1996) Tragfähigkeitsermittlung von Gewölbebrücken auf der
Grundlage von Bauwerksmessungen. 6. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 14.
März 1996, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp
149–162
Mönicke H-J (2003) Profil- und flächenhafte Objektvermessung mit Tachymeter
oder 3D-Laser-Scanner. In: Ingenieurblatt für Baden-Württemberg, Heft
4/2003, pp 102–106
Müller K-H & Garke R (2005) Auswertung von Ultraschallmessungen unter
Berücksichtigung von Vorinformationen. Revitalisierung von Bauwerken.
Schriften der Bauhaus-Universität, Heft 117, pp 33–40
Niederleithinger R et al. (2006) Guideline for Condition Assessment and
Inspection of Railway Bridges. Sustainable Bridges Project – Assessment for
Future Traffic Demands and Longer Lives
O’Connor A, Pedersen C, Enevoldsen I, Gustavsson L & Hammarbäck J (2008)
Probability based assessment of a large riveted truss railway bridge. Bridge
214 5 Investigation Techniques

Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring and Informatics, H


Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 1812–1819
Orbán Z, Yakovlev G & Pervushin G (2008) Non-Destructive Testing of masonry
arch bridges – an overview. Bautechnik (85), Heft 10, pp 711–717
Ponniah DA & Prentice DJ (1999) Long term monitoring of fill pressure in a new
brickwork arch bridge. Construction and Building Materials 13, pp 159–167
Prader J, Weidner JW, Hassanain H, Moon F, Aktan E, Jalinoos F, Buchanan B &
Ghasemi H (2008) Load testing and analysis of bridges missing critical
documentation. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Health Monitoring
and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, pp 1877–1885
Prieto F, Martin M & Viola M (2006) Application of laser vibromety analysis to
damage detection in masonry structures. Heritage, Weathering and Conserva-
tion, R Fort, M de Buergo, M Gomez-Heras & C Vazquez-Calvo (Eds),
Taylor & Francis Group, London, Volume 2, pp 627–632
Prokop A (2007) The application of terrestrial laser scanning for snow and ava-
lanche research. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung alter Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
Rücker W, Hille F & Rohrmann R (2006) Guideline for the Assessment of Exist-
ing Structures. SAMCO Final Report 2006
Schubert F, Köhler B & Lausch R (2002): Zerstörungsfreie Ultraschallprüfung von
Betonbauteilen – Impulsecho und Impactechomethode in Theorie und Praxis. 2.
Symposium Experimentelle Untersuchungen von Baukonstruktionen –
Ehrenkolloquium Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Opitz. Heft 17 der Schriftenreihe
des Institutes für Tragwerke und Baustoffe, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen,
Technische Universität Dresden, pp 25–34
Schueremans L & Van Gemert D (2001) Assessment of existing masonry struc-
tures using probabilistic methods – state of the art and new approaches.
STRUMAS 2001 18.–20. April 2001, Fifth International Symposium on
Computer Methods in Structural Masonry
Schueremans L, Van Rickstall F, Ignoul S, Brosens K, Van Balen K & Van
Gemert D (2003) Continuous Assessment of Historic Structures – A State of
the Art of applied Research and Practice in Belgium. KULeuven, Department
of Civil Engineering
Schulze M & Hampel U (2004) Erfassung und Analyse von Prüfkörpern in der
Materialprüfung durch Computertomographie. In: Publikationen der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung und
Geoinformation. Band 13, Halle (Saale), Germany, 2004, pp 317–324
Silman R & Ennis, M (1993) Non-destructive evaluation to document historic
Structures, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
(IABSE), Zurich, pp 195–203
Slowik V (2004) Combining experimental and numerical methods for the safety
evaluation of existing concrete structures, Fracture Mechanics of Concrete
Structures, VC Li, CKY Leung, KJ Willam & SL Billington (Ed), Proceed-
ings of Framcos-5, April 12–16, 2004, Vail, USA, IA-FraMCoS, Volume 2,
pp 701–707
References 215

Slowik V, Fiedler LD & Kapphahn G (2005) Zur kombinierten Anwendung


experimenteller und rechnerischer Methoden bei der Tragsicherheitsbewertung
bestehender Massivbauwerke, 3. Symposium Experimentelle Untersuchungen
von Betonkonstruktionen, Technische Universität Dresden, Institut für
Massivbau, 23. Juni 2005, Tagungsband, pp 157–168
Steffens K (2001) Experimentelle Tragsicherheitsbewertung von Bauwerken.
Grundlagen und Anwendungsbeispiele. Ernst und Sohn Verlag
Stiglat K (1984) Zur Tragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk aus Sandstein. Bautechnik
2/1984, pp 54–59 and Bautechnik 3/1984, pp 94–100
VanMarcke E (1997) Quantum Origins of Cosmic Structure. Balkema, Rotterdam
Vockrodt H-J & Schwesinger P (2002) Experimentelle Tragfähigkeitsanalyse
einer historischen Bogenbrücke in Erfurt, Bautechnik 79, Heft 6, pp 355–367
Wendrich A, Maierhofer C, Kuritz M & Köpp C (2004) Aufbau eines historischen
Mauerwerkskörpers zur Bewertung von zerstörungsfreien Verfahren.
Jahrestagung 2004 Zerstörungsfreie Materialprüfung. Kurzfassungen der
Vorträge und Plakatbeiträge. Salzburg, 17.–19. Mai 2004. Deutsche,
Österreichische und Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung
Wenzel F & Kahle M (1993) Indirect methods of investigation for evaluating
historic masonry, International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering (IABSE), Zürich 1993, pp 75–90
Wenzel F (1997a) Behutsame Vorgehensweise bei der Mauerwerksinstandsetzung.
Tagung Konsolidierung von historischem Natursteinmauerwerk, 6.–7.
November 1997, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institut für Baustoffe,
Massivbau und Brandschutz Heft 135, Braunschweig, pp 1–11
Wenzel F (1997b) (Ed) Mauerwerk – Untersuchen und Instandsetzen durch
Injizieren, Vernadeln und Vorspannen. Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
Bauwerke. Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Sonderforschungsbereich Karlsruhe.
Universität Karlsruhe
Wiggenhauser H & Maierhofer C (2002) Zerstörungsfreie Bauwerksuntersuchun-
gen mit Radar. 2. Symposium Experimentelle Untersuchungen von Baukon-
struktionen – Ehrenkolloquium Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Heinz Opitz. Heft 17 der
Schriftenreihe des Institutes für Tragwerke und Baustoffe, Fakultät Bauinge-
nieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 71–78
6 Damages and Repair

6.1 Introduction

Aging is a common phenomenon in biological systems. We do not consid-


er it as an illness, but as a normal process. It is defined as a decrease of the
capability of the organism to cope with the requirements of the environ-
ment with increasing age. Aging can also be related to decrease of reserves
(Strasser 2006).
Such a process can also be found in the case of technical products. The
engineer has to consider the aging of structures during the design process,
if the safety requirements are to be fulfilled over the entire lifetime of the
structure. Design life spans for certain structures are shown in Table 6-1.
So, the structure should function well, not only if it is new but also at the
end of its lifetime. This is sometimes called “graceful degradation”. We do
not only desire it for humans, it is also a desired criterion for technical
products.

Table 6-1. Design work time of concrete structures according to the Eurocode 1
Design life in year Example
1 ... 10 Temporary structures
10 ... 25 Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry girders and bearings
15 ... 30 Agricultural used structures
50 Buildings and other common used structures
100 Monument building structures, bridges and other structures

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_6,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
218 6 Damages and Repair

6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges

6.2.1 Overview

For reinforced concrete structures, lifetime restricting loads are clearly


identified such as carbonation, chloride attack, sulphate attack, and Frost-
Thaw (DIN 1045-1 2001). Also for historical masonry arch bridges, such
durability loads have been identified. They usually yield to changes of
properties of the structure and furthermore to damages. A definition of the
term “damage” can be found in Chapter 7. Such changes and damages can
be found on many historical arch bridges. However, that is not mainly be-
cause these types of structure have been designed so weak, but because
many of these bridges are quite old.
A rough list of damages was given by Bién and Kamiński (2004). They
list the following damages:
• Incompatible deformations (deformations which yield to changes of the
initial geometry)
• Destruction of material caused either by chemical or by physical proc-
esses
• Material discontinuities (cracks)
• Loss of material (falling stones)
• Damage on auxiliary elements (damaged sealing)
• Deformation damages (deformation on the structure that does not yield
to a change of the initial geometry, for example sliding spandrel walls)
• Contamination (natural cover, besmirch)
Typical damage patterns for arch bridges were shown by Angeles-
Yáñez and Alonso (1996), as shown in Fig. 6-1. A classification of damage
patterns for historical stone arch bridges of the European railway organiza-
tions was also given by Orbán (2004) and is summarized in Table 6-2. The
latest catalogue of damages was presented by Bień and Kamiński (2007) in
relation to degradation processes and damages (Table 6-3). Mildner (1996)
has also mentioned typical damages on masonry arch bridges.
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 219

Fig. 6-1. Most frequent damages found on arch bridges according to Angeles-Yáñez
and Alonso (1996)

Table 6-2. Types of damages at arch bridges of railways organizations and their
frequency according to Orbán (2004)
Nr. Type of damage1 Frequency2
1 Damage at sealing3 2.1
2 Deterioration of material 2.4
3 Separation and movement of wing wall 3.0
4 Separation and movement of spandrel wall 3.5
5 Damages at piers, foundation and skewback 4.0
6 Geometrical problems with the structure 4.0
7 Other problems4 4.0
8 Cracks in arch caused by settlement 4.2
9 Damages at the road crossing construction 4.3
10 Damages caused by overload 4.3
220 6 Damages and Repair

Nr. Type of damage1 Frequency2


11 Deformation 4.4
12 Cracks in arch caused by overload 4.5
13 Damages at the parapet caused by single loads 4.6
1
In general, in many cases, the cause of the damage cannot be identified.
2
Calculated as mean value based on information provided by the different railway
organizations. The numbers represent the following:
1 = Very frequent = about 50% of all bridges
2 = Frequent = about 25% of all bridges
3 = Occasional = about 10% of all bridges
4 = Rare = about 5% of all bridges
5 = Exceptional = less than 5% of all bridges
3
Many historical arch bridges were built without sealing. But of course, damages
caused by water can be found there. These bridges have therefore been added to
this statistic.
4
Other problems include damages caused by plants, damages caused by earth-
quakes, impacts and wrong maintenance.

Table 6-3. Degradation mechanisms subject to the damages to masonry bridges


(Bién and Kamiński 2007)
Degradation mechanism Damage type
Loos of material
contamination

displacement
discontinuity
deformation

destruction

Physical
Effects of high temperature
Fatigue
Freeze-Thaw
Change of foundation conditions
Overloading
Shrinkage
Water penetration
Chemical
Carbonation
Crystallization
Leaching
Salt and acid actions
Biological
Accumulation of contamination
Living organisms activities
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 221

6.2.2 Recent Collapses of Historical Arch Bridges

Recent failures of arch bridges were often related to accidental loads. For
example, the historic Pöppelmann arch bridge in Grimma was heavily
damaged during the 2002 flooding of the river Mulde (Fig. 6-2). The
bridge had to be blasted afterwards since reconstruction using the remain-
ing parts was not possible (Curbach et al. 2003a). Another example was
the failure of the arch bridge in Benairbeig over the Rio Girona in Spain
due to a flashflood called Gota Fría in October 2007 (Meyer 2007). The
failure was actually filmed because television was reporting about the
flashflood onsite. The movies are visible on YouTube. A further example
was the flood-related failure of a farm track and public footpath masonry
arch bridge over the river Devon in 2007 (Bottesford Living History 2007).
Ural et al. (2008) also mentions the failure of Turkish arch bridges by floods.

Fig. 6-2. Pöppelmann Bridge in Grimma after the flooding in 2002

Flooding and ice loads often caused failures of historical arch bridges.
Drdácký and Slízková (2007) report on the repeated damages and partial
failures of the historical Charles Bridge in Prague caused by flooding in
1359, 1367, 1370, 1373, 1374, 1432, 1496, 1503, 1655, 1784, 1890, and in
2002.
Furthermore, not only are historical bridges exposed to flooding but also
to all gravity-driven mass movements such as debris flows, rock falls, and
avalanches.
Examples of debris flow impacts against historical arch bridges can be
found in Proske (2009). For example, in Log Pod Mangartom in Slovenia,
a huge debris flow killed several people, and destroyed houses and also
one historical arch bridge. The arch bridge over the Lattenbach in Austria
222 6 Damages and Repair

is regularly exposed to debris flow impacts. The last overflow occurred


in September 2008. Ural et al. (2008) mention fluvial mass transport in-
cluding dead wood as cause of an arch bridge failure. A research project to
develop load design procedures for bridges under debris flow impacts has
been submitted by the first author of this book. Explicit examples of arch
bridge damages or failures either due to rock falls or due to avalanches are
not known, however in general the failure of bridges due to such loads is
well-known (Proske 2009).
Besides natural accidental loads, technical load may also be applied to
arch bridges such as car, railway or ship impacts, or bombardment. The
problem of ship impacts against arch bridges has been intensively dis-
cussed in Proske (2003). Further discussion of arch bridge failures can be
found in Ural et al. (2008).
Some further examples from the last few decades are also mentioned.
The first example is the partial failure of the Molins de Rei bridge close to
Barcelona, Spain on 7th February 1971 and on 1st January 1972 (Troyano
2003). Pictures of the structure after the failure are shown in Troyano
(2003). On 9th April 1978, 6 of the 15 arches of the Wilson Bridge in
Tours, France collapsed (Troyano 2003, Rombock 1994). A further exam-
ple was the failure of the Westminster Bridge in Humberside Country 1983
(Tingle and Heelbeck 1995).
Besides structural damages, the building material itself can also be dam-
aged. Masonry, as already mentioned, is a multi component material. The
damages can therefore effect single elements alone, such as the mortar or
the stone, or they can effect the masonry. Translation of terms related to
masonry can be found on the ICOMOS (2008) web page or in Bau.de
(2008).

6.2.3 Weathering of the Mortar

Mortar, the joint material of masonry, usually exhibits a much lower lifetime
and strength than the natural stones or masonry bricks. Natural stones can
reach hundreds or thousands of years of lifetime still keeping their strength
and showing only minor weathering effects.
However, the low weathering resistance of some mortar types can also
influence the stone material. The breakout of the mortar material enables
the penetration of humidity and acceleration of a further weathering of the
remaining mortar and stone or brick material. Figure 6-3 shows the principal
consequences of wrong pointing application and mortar weathering.
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 223

Fig. 6-3. Example of wrong application of pointing mortar in joints (Bartuschka


1995)

6.2.4 Spalling and Contour Scaling

Near-to-surface damages on natural stones are usually spallings and con-


tour scaling (Fig. 6-4). Based on the penetration depth, such damages are
classified into the following areas:
• Chipping of stone material either in convex or in concave shape
• Flaking or exfoliation in thin layers
• Spalling or detachment of crusts with stone layers of more than 10 mm
The cause of such damages is manifold. Classical weathering, loss of
binding agent, cracks caused by frost, bacteria as nitrificants, or salt attack.
These issues are widely discussed in literature such as Sauder and Wiesen
(1993), Beeger (1992), Poschlod (1990), Weiss (1992), or Bläuer (1992).
A very interesting example of spalling was presented by Mann. He re-
ported on spalling of masonry in a tunnel. The spalling was caused by the
smoke gas of the steam locomotive, which caused a chemical reaction of
the mortar towards gypsum.
A further example on weathered masonry surfaces can be found in Gar-
recht (1997).
224 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-4. Spalling and contour scaling (Bartuschka 1995)

6.2.5 Salt Attack

Salts that are able to damage structural material can be characterized in


many cases by their water solubility. Besides the solubility, salts can also
damage by hygroscopic water absorption. Here, salts feature a blasting ef-
fect. This blasting effect is caused by an increase in volume during the
changing of moist and dry crystalline phases of the salt. If the pore system
is already saturated, then the crystallization pressure can damage the struc-
tural material. Besides the crystallization pressure, hydration pressure can
also be observed. Water is then chemically attached to the salt in certain
temperature regions. Also, this process is characterized by a volume in-
crease. Detailed information about certain crystallization and hydration
pressures subject to saturation grade can be found in Weber (1993). A
short summary of damaging salts is given in Table 6-4.
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 225

Table 6-4. Summary of different building material damaging salts according to


Weber (1993)
Class of chemical Name
compound
Sulphate compounds MgSO4 • 7 H2O Acrid salt
CaSO4 • 2 H2O Gypsum, calcium sulphate
Na2SO4 • 10 H2O Sodium sulphate
Nitrate compounds Mg(NO3)2 • 6 H2O Magnesium nitrate
Ca(NO3)2 • 4 H2O Calcium nitrate
5 Ca(NO3)2 • 4 NH3NO3 •
10 H2O
Chloride compounds CaCl2 • 6 H2O Calcium chloride
NaCl Common salt, sodium chloride
Carbonate compounds Na2CO3 • 10 H2O Sodium carbonate
K2CO3 Potash, Calcium carbonate

In comparison to damage caused only by humidity and wetness, usually


the damage by the salts is greater. However, the salts require humidity and
water as a transport medium and therefore mixed damages are common
(Weber 1993).
Damages related to humidity and salt are the following:
• Frost damage
• Spalling caused by hydraulic swelling and shrinkage
• Crystallization damage by salts
• Hydration damage by salts
• Frost-thaw damage
• Binding material reaction caused by acid exhausts
• Damage caused by microorganisms
Because damage by salts can be simply avoided by water penetration
exception, hydrophobicity of stones not only prevents water damage but
also salt damage. Hydrophobicity decreases the capillary suction capability
of materials. Most construction materials such as masonry or concrete suck
water on the surface. The wetting angle of contact is zero. Hydrophobicity
increases the wetting angle up to 90° or 180°. Since the capillary suction is
proportional to the cosine of the wetting angle, this yields to a cancellation
of capillary suction. However, this does not mean that the material is
sealed. If water with pressure is applied, this water can penetrate the material.
226 6 Damages and Repair

6.2.6 Chemical Weathering

Chemical weathering describes the natural transformation process of ma-


sonry material subject to different chemical reactions. Usually, moisture
and humidity are common requirements for such chemical reactions.
With the assimilation of moisture from the environment, usually other
chemicals are assimilated such as sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, or carbon
dioxide. These elements then form acids and bases that solve the binding
material of the stones and mortar. The loss of binding material yields to
spalling, contour scaling, chipping, and flaking (Bartuschka 1995).

6.2.7 Biological Weathering

Biological weathering describes the damaging of structural materials or


structures by biological processes. Such biological processes can be
microorganisms, moss growth, or the growth of plants and trees. Such
organisms either cause some chemical reactions or are able to introduce
stresses and forces inside the structural elements.
Mattheck et al. (1993) have measured the compression and tensile
strength of tree roots and found maximum compression stresses of up to
0.7 MPa, and tensile stresses of up to 50 MPa in longitudinal direction of
the tree root. Müller (2005) and Bauriegel (2004) investigate the strength
of trees under certain types of loadings on normal land. Although such
tests do not reflect in detail the conditions discussed here, they give a good
impression about the load transfer into roots. Garston (1985) has investi-
gated the influence of old trees to houses. Mattheck et al. (1993) give a
good example about the load-bearing capabilities of tree roots: in 1993 in a
northern German city, a tree root lifted up a gas pipe. This caused a gas
explosion.

6.2.8 Mechanical and Physical Weathering

Physical weathering is based on some physical properties of the construc-


tion material. For example, the coefficient of thermal expansion can yield
to different strains, causing different compression or tensile stresses inside
the material. If the stresses exceed the strength, then the material will crush
or crack. Such cracks can accelerate the weathering in combination with
water and salt penetration. However, physically caused damages are gen-
erally of minor importance for historical arch bridges (Bartuschka 1995).
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 227

6.2.9 Deformations

Deformation of elements or the entire structure is required for structures


to perform. However, if the magnitude of the deformations is too high, de-
formations can be considered as damage. The line between common defor-
mations and damage is difficult to find under practical conditions. For ex-
ample, arch bridges have already shown significant deformations after the
destruction of the falsework. Early bridges in the 18th century showed ver-
tical deformations in the crown of more than a 1 cm per m span. The span-
drel walls were often completed half a year after the finishing of the arch.
At that time, nearly 1/3 of the creep deformation of the arch had already
occurred. Bridges constructed in the second part of the 19th century did
not reach such high vertical deformations (usually between 0.1 and 0.4
mm/m). This can probably be related to an increased mortar quality
(Brencich and Colla 2002).
A good example to illustrate deformations in arch bridges is the Syratal
Bridge in Plauen, Germany. The deformation at the crown reached 55.57 cm
in 1995. The bridge has a span of 90 m. It has been assumed that the crown
deformation will reach 56.90 cm by 2070. This represents a ratio of nearly
0.57/90 = 6/1,000. The temporal development of the deformation is shown
in Fig. 6-5. The cause of the high deformation is manifold. Figure 6-6 tries
to relate certain causes to certain deformation values.
Perronet already knew about the great deformation of arch bridges. At
the Neuilli Bridge in Paris (1782–1783), he measured a deformation of 0.7
cm per m after the destruction of the falsework. He assumed that this value
represented about 60% of the overall assumed deformation. In the next 12
months, a further 30% of the overall deformation was observed and the fi-
nal deformation was found after five years (Brencich and Colla 2002).
Weber (1999) gives a deformation of 66 mm for the Lavour Bridge after
removal of the falsework. Harvey (2006) mentions deformation at the
springing of 0.1 mm under traffic load. He indicates that stones can come
off in the section of maximum traffic load.
According to Brencich and Colla (2002), high deformations of the arch
can cause cracks in hidden vaults and in the spandrel walls. Such cracks
yield to a separation, and therefore the ultimate load-bearing capacity of
the bridge may be changed due to the changed interaction of the single
structural elements.
228 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-5. Crown deformation of the Syratal Bridge, Plauen over time (Span 90 m)
(Bartuschka 1995)

Fig. 6-6. Contribution of different causes to the crown deformation of the Syratal
Bridge, Plauen (Bartuschka 1995)
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 229

6.2.10 Cracks

A crack is the linear physical disconnection of former homogenous body.


Cracking is caused by the exceedance of the tensile strength of a material.
Cracks are common phenomena in brittle, low tensile strength materials.
Such materials are, for example, glass, natural stones or concrete. Single
cracks are not necessarily a damage as seen with reinforced concrete. Here,
the concrete has to crack to permit the steel reinforcement contribution in
the load bearing. In such cases, the cracking is considered during the de-
sign process and only the crack size has to be limited.
Certain types of cracks in masonry are shown in Fig. 6-7. Such crack
patterns are strongly related to the failure surfaces as discussed in Chapter 3.
However, looking more towards masonry arch bridges, further classifica-
tion of cracks seems to be useful.
Cracks in the arch or vault can be an indication of overload on the struc-
ture. Since the geometrical location of the crack permits further interpre-
tation, certain types of arch bridge cracks are introduced in Fig. 6-8 and
classified. The comments of the cracks are mainly taken from Bienert
(1976), Bartuschka (1995), and the UIC-Codex (1995).
230 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-7. Typical crack patterns in masonry walls according to Al Bosta (1999),
Jäger (2006), and Walthelm (1990, 1991)
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 231

Fig. 6-8. Typical crack types in masonry arch bridges according to Bienert (1976)

6.2.10.1 Longitudinal cracks

Longitudinal cracks run parallel with the span of the bridge. They can ei-
ther run over the entire span of the bridge or cover parts of the bridge.
Since cracks always indicate tensile forces rectangular to the crack direc-
tion, longitudinal cracks indicate tensile forces in transversal direction of
the bridge. Such tensile forces can be caused by one-sided settlement of
the bridge, which is the main cause, while transversal bending can be
caused by one-sided traffic load on wide arches or vaults with several
lanes or high shrinkage stresses on wide arches. Longitudinal cracks often
indicate damage to the sealing. In general, longitudinal cracks do not indi-
cate an immediate threat to the ultimate load-bearing capacity of the
bridge. Longitudinal cracks are, for example, mentioned in Boothby et al.
(2004).
232 6 Damages and Repair

6.2.10.2 Front circle cracks


Front circle cracks or front ring cracks are a special type of longitudinal
cracks in arch bridges. Front circle cracks are located directly behind the
spandrel wall in the arch or vault. Sometimes they reach down to the piers
or abutment. Usually, the causes are different: stiffnesses of the spandrel
wall and the backfill, high traffic loads which cause movements of the
spandrel wall, or moisture penetration caused by damaged sealing. In con-
trast to the good-natured longitudinal cracks, front circle cracks may cause
a distinct change of the load-bearing behaviour of the arch bridges because
the spandrel wall separates from the arch. Usually, the spandrel walls con-
tribute strongly to the load bearing of the arch and therefore the loss of this
contribution has strong effects on load-bearing behaviour. The question
then arises whether the spandrel wall has been considered in the static
computation of the arch bridge (Bartuschka 1995).

6.2.10.3 Extrados joint crack


Extrados joint cracks or arch back cracks are longitudinal cracks located at
the back side of the arch. They also yield to a separation of the spandrel
wall from the arch. However, the consequences are lower compared to the
front circle cracks since they indicate an original weak interlook between
the spandrel wall and the arch. Under such conditions, the load capacity of
the spandrel wall cannot be considered anyway since the interaction be-
tween the spandrel wall and the arch was not realized during design and
construction. Causes of such cracks can be differences of stiffness between
arch and spandrel wall, differences of stiffness between arch and the back-
fill, shrinkage deformations, or high horizontal loading inside the backfill
caused by traffic load or frost (Bartuschka 1995).

6.2.10.4 Transversal cracks


Transversal cracks run rectangular to the span of the arch. They occur
mainly at the springing, at the quarter point of the arch or at the crown, and
indicate the development of hinges in the arch (Fig. 6-9). Therefore, they
are a serious sign of overloading of the arch. Further causes besides the
overloading of the arch can be settlement, introduction of high single loads
with low coverage, improper shape of the arch, or high shear stresses in the
horizontal working joints of the backfill.
6.2 Damages on Historical Arch Bridges 233

Fig. 6-9. Transversal cracks caused by horizontal movements of the support ac-
cording to Como (1998)

Fig. 6-10. Damages to vault constructions caused by abutment and foundation


weakness (Bauriegel 2004)

An intensive discussion of loading of arches by horizontal displacement


of the support can be found in Ochsendorf (2002) and Ochsendorf et al.
(2004). A more general introduction to the consequences of settlement for
historical structures was given by Bauriegel (2004). As an example, dam-
ages to vault constructions are shown in Fig. 6-10.
234 6 Damages and Repair

6.2.10.5 Diagonal cracks


Diagonal cracks appear rather seldom in arches and vaults. If such cracks
are found, they have to be inspected. Causes for the development of the
cracks can be local weakness of the masonry or unequal load distribution.
The unintended load bearing of the spandrel wall at the springing can
cause diagonal cracks in the spandrel wall (Bartuschka 1995).

6.2.10.6 Displaced stones


Sometimes displaced stones can be found in the arch. The reason why the
stones have moved has to be investigated very carefully. In most cases,
such moved stones occur on arch bridges with low coverage, high single
loads, and low bound between the stones. Such stones can endanger traffic
and humans under the bridges (Bartuschka 1995, Harvey 2006).

6.2.10.7 Special damage on spandrel walls


Spandrel walls and parapets can show some special types of damage.
Melbourne (1991) has classified the damage as shown in Fig. 6-11. An ex-
ample of sliding is shown in Fig. 6-12. Several examples of the complete
failure of spandrel walls by overturning after earthquakes can be found in
Rota (2004).
Como (1998) describes crack patterns in spandrel walls of arch bridges
caused by settlement of the middle pier (Fig. 6-13). Fauchoux and Abdunur
(1998) have indeed found such crack patterns at a bridge with pier settle-
ment. They have repaired the bridge by removal of the backfill, needling
of the arch masonry, and inserting a new concrete backfill.

Fig. 6-11. Different damage types on spandrel walls and parapets according to
Melbourne (1991)
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 235

Fig. 6-12. Sliding spandrel wall

Fig. 6-13. Crack pattern on spandrel walls caused by vertical settlement of the
middle pier according to Como (1998)

6.3 Repair and Strengthening

6.3.1 Introduction

If damages are found at structures, they are usually repaired or refurbished.


Repair is a part of the maintenance of structures. According to DIN 31 051
(2003), all actions to conserve and restore the normal conditions and to
236 6 Damages and Repair

investigate and assess the actual conditions are integral parts of what is
called “maintenance.” Therefore, maintenance includes all types of inspec-
tion, servicing, and repair. For example, it includes damage and failure in-
vestigation, undertaking mitigation measures, repairing and mending, re-
placement and assembly, testing, and clearance. Inspection itself includes
all means to investigate and assess the actual conditions of a system. That
includes testing, measuring, assessment, and documentation. Servicing in-
cludes all actions to keep a system in normal conditions. For example, test-
ing, adjusting, exchanging, supplementing, preserving, and cleaning are
parts of servicing. It seems to be meaningful to link inspections and servic-
ing. Therefore, often the costs for both are given together (Curbach et al.
2003b).
Table 6-5 gives some German rules for investigation periods of bridges.
In contrast, Table 6-6 gives some indications for the maintenance planning
for arch bridges.

Table 6-5. Inspection intervals of bridges according to Switaiski (2006)


DIN 1076 RiL 804 Time distance
Ongoing observation Observation Permanent, half-yearly
Observation ------------------- Yearly
Simple inspection Inspection 3 years
Main inspection Expertise 6 years
Inspection caused by event Special inspection

Table 6-6. Return period of different maintenance actions on arch bridges accord-
ing to Steele et al. (2006)
Maintenance activity Every (years)
Vegetation removal 5
Coping stone replacement/realignment 10
Brickwork maintenance – repoint/renewal 15
Parapet repairs/replacement 15
Invert clearance 20
Cutwaters replaced 40
First refurbishment scheme 120
Second refurbishment scheme 200

To describe the degree of maintenance, Melchers and Faber (2001)


introduce a maintenance factor:
R0,R = M ⋅ R0 . (6-1)

The value M depends on the quality of maintenance (Table 6-7).


6.3 Repair and Strengthening 237

Table 6-7. Statistical properties of factor M according to Melchers and Faber (2001)
Quality of maintenance Mean value Standard deviation
Low 0.90 0.10
Good 0.95 0.05
Excellent 1.00 0.02

An excellent maintenance restores the original load-bearing capacity of


a structure. In contrast, a low quality of maintenance restores the load-
bearing capacity only to 90%. However, this model is rather simple. In
many cases, some maintenance actions restore the capacity, whereas other
actions decrease the capacity by structural work. In many cases the load-
bearing capacity of historical arch bridges also has to be increased.
Orbán (2004) has published an investigation about common repair
works on masonry railway arch bridges (Table 6-8). Not only does it list
the different methods but it also indicates the frequency of the certain
methods. Rombock (1994) mentions the following maintenance works for
natural stone material:
• Cleaning and hydrophobicity of natural stones
• Treatment of salt damages on natural stone masonry
• Conservation of natural stones
• Chemical stone cleaning
• Drying of masonry
• Mechanical cleaning
• Strengthening of natural stones
• Supplement of natural stones
The list of refurbishment techniques suggested by Page (1996) is listed in
Table 6-9.

Table 6-8. Repair techniques for masonry railway arch bridges according to
Orbán (2004)
Repair technique Percent of railway organi-
zations with experience in
the repair technique (%)
Maintenance of sealing:
Drainage pipes re-positioned and put through the arch 58
New backfill and roadway slab with sealing 42
Sealing without bond on the arch 33
Grouting of cement and micro-cement into the arch or 25
vault
Grouting of gel through the arch 17
238 6 Damages and Repair

Repair technique Percent of railway organi-


zations with experience in
the repair technique (%)
Increase of load-bearing capacity –
Injection into the arch or vault 83
Shotcrete at the introdos of the arch 58
New backfill and roadway slab on the vault 42
Nailing of cracks with grouting of the nails 33
Support of the vault by steel arches 25
Increase of load-bearing capacity of the abutments, –
foundations and piers
Piles through the abutment 67
Nailing and grouting 50
Protection against erosion (sheet pile, concrete cover, 42
stone plasters around the pier)
Addition of reinforced concrete elements 33
Injection into the ground 33
Introduction of load-bearing capacity into the width of
the arch
Tie road and anchor plates 67
Connection between spandrel wall and arch 17
Reinforced concrete slab on the arch 25
Shotcrete at the intrados and connection of the spandrel 8
walls on the concrete by tensile elements

Table 6-9. Maintenance on masonry arch bridges according to Page (1996) and
COST 345 (2006)
Fault Measure
Deteriorated pointing Repoint
Deteriorated arch ring Repair masonry
Install saddle
Apply sprayed concrete to intrados
Install pre-fabricated liner
Grout arch ring
Apply proprietary repair technique
Arch ring inadequate to carry in- Install saddle
service loads Apply sprayed concrete to intrados
Install pre-fabricated liner
Replace fill with concrete
Install steel beam-relieving arches
Install relieving slab
Apply proprietary repair technique
Internal deterioration of mortar, Grout arch ring
which could lead to ring separation, Stitch (using tie bars spanning across a
for example crack)
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 239

Fault Measure
Foundation movement Install mini-piles or underpin
Grout piers and abutments
Outward movement of spandrel walls Install tie bars
Install spreader beams
Replace fill with concrete
Demolish walls and rebuild
Grout fill
Separation of arch ring beneath span- Stitch together
drel wall from remainder of arch ring
Weak fill Replace fill with concrete
Grout fill
Reinforce fill
Water leakage through arch ring Make road surfacing water resistant
Install waterproofing
Waterproof extrados and improve drainage
Scour, or damage to scour protection Install protection measures
works
Repair or enhance protection system, for
example by placing riprap or concrete
around substructures at risk

According to Bartuschka (1995), the following actions can be used to


restore the load-bearing capacity of the arch:
• Replacement of the backfill
• Application of shotcrete shell
• Construction of a bridge inside the bridge (see for example Notkus and
Dulinskas 2002 and Stritzke 2007 and Fig. 6-14)
• Construction of a railway reinforced concrete slab

Fig. 6-14. Example of a bridge in bridge construction taken from Stritzke (2007)

Bartuschka (1995) distinguishes between an investigation and a construc-


tion phase. Both sequences are shown in Figs. 6-15 and 6-16.
Furthermore, a summary of certain reconstruction techniques can be
found in Hamid et al. (1994) or at Mathur et al. (2006).
240 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-15. Investigation phase (Bartuschka 1995)

Fig. 6-16. Construction phase (Bartuschka 1995)

Rombock (1994) gives a comprehensive list of damage and refurbish-


ment cases on historical arch bridges built with natural stones. Standfuß
and Thomass (1987) state that the view of historical arch bridges should
be changed by only minor refurbishment. For example, shotcrete and con-
crete layers such as shown in Knoblauch et al. (2008) should only be applied
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 241

if no other strengthening measures can be used. However, they indicate


that under nearly all conditions, the so-called replacement of lay bricks can
be applied to re-establish the original conditions. Replacement of lay
bricks considers the replacement of damaged masonry parts by construct-
ing a falsework that supports the arch and lay bricks in the damaged re-
gions after replacing the damaged parts. For this technology, comparable
natural stones should be applied. Furthermore, sealing of the historical
arch bridges is a must according to Standfuß and Thomass (1987).
Mabon (2002) considers the construction of a concrete backfill and the
reinforced concrete railway slab as the most popular techniques for the
strengthening of historical natural stone arch bridges. Mabon (2002) fur-
thermore mentions the application of reinforcement in cut slots and of a
shotcrete layer.
Vockrodt (2005) and Vockrodt et al. (2003) also mention some restora-
tion examples in detail. Witzany et al. (2008) describe experimental stud-
ies in strengthening techniques.

6.3.2 Strengthening Techniques

6.3.2.1 Stone refurbishment


Certain types of damage mechanisms were given in this chapter. One major
type was chemical attacks, such as salt penetration. Measures against salt
can be classified into chemical and physical ones. The chemical measures
mainly use the idea to transform aggressive salts into non-aggressive salts.
However, since different types of salts can be found inside the stone under
realistic conditions, it seems to be improbable to transform all aggressive
salts into harmless ones.
The physical salt decontamination uses intermediate plasters. Unfortu-
nately, such a technology seems to be impracticable for bridges. Addition-
ally, electro-physical technologies based on electro-osmosis are known.
Under all conditions, a cleaning of the natural stones should be carried
out. Table 6-10 lists and relates certain types of cleaning technologies to
certain types of stones. Local damages of stones can be repaired by reim-
2
bursement. For example, for stone damage zones smaller than 200 cm ,
restoration mortar can be used. If the damage zones are greater, then for
the reimbursement natural stone parts should be used. Bartuschka (1995)
gives the following working steps:
1. Pick out at least 2 cm deep and dovetail shaped (Fig. 6-17).
2. If the damage zones are greater, stainless steel reinforcement should be
built in. The reinforcement should not run over joints.
3. The surface of the reimbursement should be prepared by a stone cutter.
242 6 Damages and Repair

Table 6-10. Cleaning technologies for certain natural stones according to Bartuschka
(1995)

Press water cleaning (cold/hot)


Cold water cleaning without

Cleaning compound
Steam jet cleaning

Sand blasting
Sandstone Beebly pressure
{ + + – {
Limy { { + – +
Clayey { + + – +
Lime stone Absorbent, soft { { + – {
coarsely porous + { + { {
coarsely porous, buffed + { + – {
Dense + { + { {
Dense, buffed + { + – +
Granite, Diorite + { + { +
Syenite, Labradorite (buffed) + { + – +
Tuff { { + – +
Marble Not buffed + { + – +
Buffed + { + – +
crystalline schist (not buffed) { { + { {
Phyllite, Serpentinite (buffed) { { + – +
Brick Not glazed { { + – +
Glazed { { + – +

Wrong picking out of a stone Correct picking out of a stone


Fig. 6-17. Examples of stone picking out according to Bartuschka (1995)
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 243

Many works have been published about the renovation of natural stones.
Further references of Ruffert (1981), Nodoushani (1997, 1998), Wihr
(1980), Reul (1994), Bienert (1976), and Sauder and Wiesen (1993) are
given.
The renovation of the stone material should always further include a res-
toration of the joint material since both act together. Furthermore, the joint
mortar often damages the stone material.

6.3.2.2 Mortar refurbishement


Mortar refurbishment mainly includes the removal of loose mortar and the
building of new joint material. This can be done either by hand or by
pressing by force. Several different techniques are shown in Bartuschka
(1995) and Jäger (2006). For example, the steps for the dry injection
method are shown in Fig. 6-18.

c Natural stone masonry


d Open and weakened joint
e Backfill
f Hammer
g Cleaned weak joint mortar

c Natural stone masonry


d Open and weakened joint
e Backfill
f Jet nozzle
g Cleaned weak joint mortar and
jet material

Fig. 6-18. (Continued)


244 6 Damages and Repair

c Natural stone masonry


d Open and weakened joint
e Backfill
f Jet nozzle
g Trass lime mortar for joint tuck-
pointing

Fig. 6-18. Sequence of dry spraying method (Bartuschka 1995)

6.3.2.3 Reinforced concrete slab

Reinforced concrete slabs are a common load-bearing capacity-increasing


strengthening technology (Fig. 6-19). Miri and Hughes (2004) have carried
out tests on a scale of 1:12 which prove the increase impressively. The ap-
plication of a concrete slab increases the load-bearing capacity by a factor
between 3.2 and 3.7, depending on the ratio rise to span. In general, the
tests by Miri and Hughes (2004) have shown the load-deflection curve in
Fig. 6-20. It should be mentioned here that a former German railway rec-
ommendation gave an increase in the load-bearing capacity without any
detailed computation of a factor 1.2. The increase can be easily explained
by the change of the loading mechanism in arches. See the change of beam
models in Chapter 3 from simple arch models toward the model of Gocht
(1978).
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 245

Fig. 6-19. Example of arch bridge width increase by a concrete slab

Fig. 6-20. Qualitative deformation of an arch with and without reinforced concrete
slab according to Miri and Hughes (2004)
246 6 Damages and Repair

6.3.2.4 Injection and grouting


Injections and grouting can be applied to masonry bridges for different
reasons. For example, the behaviour of the masonry can be homogenized,
sealed, and hollow sections can be closed.
If sealing is reached by injection, then the injecting material does have to
fulfill the requirements for not only the injecting process but also sealing
properties. From a technological point of view, the injection material
should have a high penetration capability. Therefore, usually a low mo-
lecular material is used. Additionally, mainly true fluid solutions are com-
mon. Emulsions and suspensions are only rarely used. Since the 1980s, be-
sides cement slurry and cement suspensions, further injection material has
become widespread. Such materials are
• Alkali silicate dissolutions
• Alkali methyl silicone dissolutions
• Combination of alkali silicate dissolution and alkali methyl silicone
dissolutions
• Alkali propyl silicone dissolutions
• Silane and low-molecular oligomer siloxane in organic dissolvent
• Water soluble silicone microemulsions concentrate
• Bitumen solution and melting mass
• Bitumen emulsion
• Organic resin in organic dissolvent
• Alkanes
However, injections and grouting include a great uncertainty subject to
the effectiveness and any long-term effects. Therefore, before the applica-
tion is launched, the technology has to be evaluated regarding quality as-
surance. To provide that, usually test injections are carried out and can be
used for the assessment of the injection value. Several months after the test
injection, a destructive and nondestructive test should be applied to inves-
tigate the quality and effectiveness of the injection and grouting. That in-
jection and grouting can be successfully applied, for example, has been
shown by Schueremans et al. (2003).

6.3.2.5 Reinforcement
Already grouting and injection are technologies for improving the me-
chanical material properties of the construction material – here, masonry.
To this class also belongs the technique of reinforcement. However, the
volume or area ratio is rather low. The technique concentrates much more
on a well-selected location of the reinforcement inside the masonry. This
requires an understanding of the load path flow inside the masonry. Examples
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 247

of the application of reinforcement, either for the strengthening of the pier


or for the strengthening of the arch can be found in Figs. 6-21 and 6-22.
In general, the reinforcement can be distinguished either according to
the material used in metallic and nonmetallic reinforcements, or according
to the forces that should be partially covered by the reinforcement such as
shear force reinforcement or bending moment reinforcement.
A special example of the application of reinforcement is given in the
next section.

Fig. 6-21. Installation of threaded rods and nailing on a pier according to HA


(1997) and COST 345 (2004)
248 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-22. Reinforcement concept for arches according to Woodward (1997) and
COST 345 (2004)

6.3.2.6 Archtec techniques


The Archtec technique has been applied more than 130 times in Great
Britain, the United States, and Australia since 1998 (Brookes and Mullet
2004). As a specific example, the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge in the United
States is mentioned (Darden and Scott 2006)
The general idea of the technology is the strengthening of arch segments
by additional reinforcement elements. Since the most frequent failure of
arches is the development of mechanisms, including hinges at the quarter
points, the application is applied there to increase the bending moment ca-
pacity in the cross sections. However, in contrast to other strengthening
measures, such as replacement of the backfill by concrete, here no massive
construction works have to be undertaken at the bridge. Rather, only
drillings are carried out and then the reinforcement such as threaded rods
is applied into the drilling holes. Figure 6-23 shows, as an example, the lo-
cation of reinforcement elements with a length of 2.5 m. The effective-
ness of this concept has been proven in tests where the reinforcement ele-
ments as well as the arch were equipped with strain-measuring devices. Of
course, the strengthening can only be active for traffic load. The dead load
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 249

Fig. 6-23. Profile of an arch bridge with the position of the reinforcement ele-
ments
still has to be taken entirely by the original arch (Brookes and Mullet 2004,
Mabon 2002, Owen et al. 2005 and Tilly and Brookes 2005).

6.3.2.7 Profile bars and threaded rods


Oliveira and Lourenço (2004) introduced the installation of transversal re-
inforcement elements into arches (Fig. 6-24) or above the extrados. The
elements are designed to overtake tensile forces in transversal direction.
The reinforcement elements are profile bars. A comparable solution has
been introduced by Falconer (1999). He anchored the reinforcement above
the arch stones. In Germany, model drawings and recommendations for
the anchoring of reinforcement elements in the spandrel walls exist
(BMVBW 1993). A further example can be found in Welch (1995).

Fig. 6-24. Transversal reinforcement elements in an arch taken from Oliveira and
Lourenço (2004)
250 6 Damages and Repair

6.3.2.8 Non-metallic reinforcement


Besides the application of classical steel reinforcement, nonmetallic rein-
forcement elements can also be applied. The major advantage is the exclu-
sion of corrosion. Such techniques are applied, not only to natural stone
bridges, but also to classical steel reinforced concrete elements. The first
author has used textiles for reinforcement for concrete slabs (Proske 1997).
Other materials have also been applied to arch bridges.
For example, Modena et al. (2004) report about the installation of car-
bon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) elements transversally and longitu-
dinally into arches. Melbourne and Tomor (2004) and Hodgson (2003)
have also used CFRP elements for arch strengthening.
Bergmeister (2003) introduces the strengthening of a concrete arch
bridge in transversal direction by CFRP elements.
Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) have been applied for the strengthen-
ing of historical arch bridges by De Lorenzis and Nanni (2004), Creazza
and Saetta (2001), Valluzzi and Modena (2001), Borri et al. (2002) – Fig.
6-25, Bati and Rovero (2008), Ricamato (2007), Drosopoulos et al. (2007),
and Panizza et al. (2008).

Fig. 6-25. Strengthening example of arch bridge using FRP by Borri et al. (2002)

6.3.2.9 Pre stressing


Pre stressed and nailed masonry applied to historical arch bridges will not
be discussed here in detail. For details, see Ganz (1990), Ullrich (1989),
and Wenzel (1997).

6.3.2.10 Shotcrete
The application of shotcrete with historical masonry arch bridges is not
recommended due to conservation criteria for monuments and historical
structures. However, under some conditions, it cannot be avoided, or it can
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 251

be applied to unimportant structures. Especially in Germany, model draw-


ings and recommendations exist about the application of shotcrete at the
intrados (BMVBW 1993).

6.3.2.11 Restoration of parapet


In the section on damages, damages on spandrel walls and parapets was
also mentioned. Here, restoration techniques have been developed with ei-
ther using some hidden application of strengthening material, such as rein-
forced concrete, or using a decoupling of the backfill and the spandrel
walls. Examples are shown in Figs. 6-26 and 6-27. Further details can be
found in the COST 345 report (2006).

Fig. 6-26. Reinforced parapet according to Welch (1995) and COST 345 (2006)
252 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-27. Decoupling of the spandrel wall according to Welch (1995) and COST
345 (2006)

6.3.2.12 Increase of width


An insufficient width of historical bridges is a major problem for the ad-
aptation of such structures to modern traffic requirements. Therefore,
widening of the bridges is common (Fig. 6-28). For example, in the last
few years in Spain, one fifth of all highway bridges have been widened
(Angeles-Yáñez and Alonso 1996). According to Harrison (2004), the
major cause for destruction of historical bridges in Great Britain was insuf-
ficient width of the road track.
An example of the successful widening of a historical arch bridge can be
found in Troyano (2003). Here, the widening of the Pont Vieux de Albin
over the river Tarn and Burgo in Spain was carried out using a low-pitched
arch. Another example was given by Parikh and Patwardhan (1999). The
widening of the Marienbrigde in Dresden was described by Koettnitz and
Schwenke (1998). See also Scheidler (1992), Sobrino (2007), Boronczyk-
Plaska and Radomski (2008), and Vockrodt et al. (2003).
A very special example is the Chemnitz Viaduct in Germany, where the
span of the arch was too low for the highway traffic under the bridge.
Therefore, one pier was supported by a bridge under the historical arch
bridge (Fig. 6-29). Also, the New Saale Bridge South Jena on German
highway A4 is mentioned here (Martin and Becker 2005). Although the
bridge is a new reinforced bridge to provide sufficient overall width for the
highway, it uses the shape of the historical arch bridge in which
neighbourhood it is built (Fig. 6-30).
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 253

It is virtually impossible to present here all maintenance and repair


strategies applied to historical arch bridges. Therefore, the following sec-
tion summarizes some refurbishment examples for historical arch bridges
but does not intend to be a complete list. However, it should give an im-
pression about the problems faced under practical conditions.

Fig. 6-28. Example of arch bridge width increase by an attached beam

Fig. 6-29. Chemnitz Viaduct after removal of the piers (Germany) according to
Reintjes (2002)
254 6 Damages and Repair

Fig. 6-30. New Saale Bridge South Jena

6.3.3 Examples

The historical bridge over the river Werra in the city of Münden in Lower
Saxony, Germany was found to show an insufficient load-bearing capacity
after a major bridge investigation. This assumption was based on erosion
found at the piers, heavy curvatures and shifts of the pier and arch ma-
sonry, efflorescence and strong weathering of the masonry joints, and fi-
nally strong corrosions of the steel anchors, iron clips, and the iron parapet
(Schwartz 1988).
Due to the historical importance of the bridge, a major maintenance ac-
tion was launched. The maintenance plan included, for example, the substi-
tution of the iron parapet by a massive parapet. Furthermore, the arch was
cleaned by high-pressure cold water. Damage to the stones was repaired by
substitution using natural stone material and small damage was repaired
using Mineros stone mass. This material includes stone flour, which is em-
bedded into a two-component synthetic (Schwartz 1988).
Another example is the refurbishment of the Taubern Bridge in Lauda.
The historical three-arch bridges were erected in 1512 with a span between
6 and 7 m. Due to the increasing traffic load, spandrel walls and wing
walls were moved and the masonry arch showed wide cracks. To provide
safety for the bridge, anchors and clips were built in. In the 1930s, a
steel jacket was installed at the extrados. However, the amount of dam-
age increased, and in the 1960s the weight restriction of the bridge was
intensified from 16 to 9 tonnes. Finally, the bridge was demolished and
6.3 Repair and Strengthening 255

reconstructed with reinforced concrete. The foundation using reinforced


concrete piles, the span and, very importantly, the width of the recon-
structed bridge were changed in relation to the original one. To conform at
least partially to conservation rules, parts of the original bridge were used
for the reconstruction. For example, the coverage of the bridge was carried
out using natural stone, sometimes even original parts. Also, for the bridge
platforms, the original bridge crucifixes were used (BMV 1988).
The third example is the Hoch Bridge Dingolfing. The bridge was origi-
nally constructed in 1612 as a five-span brick masonry bridge with single
spans between 5.40 and 6.35 m. The piers reach a width of 1.20 and 1.35
m. The bridge reaches an overall length of 54 m and a maximum height of
5.6 m. The brick material showed heavy damages due to long moisture
penetration.
At several locations, stones had separated from the masonry. Settlement
of the piers had yielded to cracks in the spandrel walls. The bridge was
maintained in 1750, 1850, and 1890. The latest refurbishment was carried
out in 1966. The refurbishment had contained a complete disassembly and
reconstruction of the spandrel walls, clearage of the backfill and refilling
with lean concrete, and installation of a sealing and drainage system. Fur-
thermore, special bricks were produced for the reconstruction, the remain-
ing elements were cleaned by sandblasting, and afterwards the joints were
filled again. For this filling, a special mortar was designed using pit lime
mortar with tuff additive. Additionally, the bridge-in-bridge system was
applied because the arch was separated from the reinforced concrete slab
by a reinforced concrete structure that carried the load directly from the
railway slab towards the piers. The arch crown was separated from the
concrete slab by a 5 cm strong polystyrene layer (BMV 1988).
The old Dreisam Bridge Eichstetten is a five-span basket arch bridge
with single spans between 4.70 and 5.00 m. The piers have a width of 1.35
m. The width of the bridge reaches 4.6 m. The arches are covered with
natural stone ashlar masonry, however the inner parts are only built with
quarries. The spandrel walls are also made of ashlar masonry. The parapet
again is built with quarries. In 1950, the bridge was refurbished by building
in a backfill with lean concrete and adding a reinforced concrete railway
slab. The spandrel walls were secured by tendons with steel anchors. Such
steel anchors were also used at the Kocherbridge Griesbach (BMV 1988).
The Wurm Bridge in Hessia, constructed in 1777, was maintained in
1979 only by adding a reinforced concrete slab and a new sealing to the
structure. This five-span bridge built of new red stone masonry, and with
spans between 3.0 and 4.5 m, is one of the few bridges in Germany not
blasted at the end of World War II (BMV 1988).
256 6 Damages and Repair

The Nagol Bridge in Hirsau was constructed in 1560 as an arch bridge


using new red sandstone. The bridge reached an overall length of 51.30 m
with four segmental arches spanning between 7.30 and 13.00 m. The piers
reached a width between 3.00 and 5.40 m. In 1852 and 1855, the bridge
was strongly maintained. In 1914, the width of the bridge was extended
from 5.0 to 12 m. This was done by constructing reinforced concrete
arches covered with natural stones (BMV 1988).
Many further examples can be found in the literature. As mentioned in
Chapter 1, the number of arch bridges still functioning in the infrastructure
is overwhelming. The efforts to keep such an essential piece are repre-
sented in many papers dealing with the strengthening of arch bridges.
Some examples are mentioned in Koettnitz and Schwenke (1998), Günther
et al. (1999), Vockrodt (2005), Patzschke (1996), and Zahn (1999). Recent
examples can be found in Fotheringham (2008), Asmar et al. (2008), Beben
and Manko (2008), and Siwowski and Sobala (2008).

6.4 Arch Bridges of the Second Generation

Although the maintenance efforts for arch bridges are low if the lifetime is
considered, Weber (1999) suggests an improvement of arch bridges and
call these bridges second generation stone arch bridges. Such new arch
bridges feature the following:
• Abandonment of back and lining masonry above the extrados. This
would yield to an improved numerical description of the load-bearing
behaviour of the arch with lower construction costs
• Backfill material used should be cohesionless and coarse grained. Geo-
textiles or steel ribbons should be applied to limit the compression on
the spandrel walls. Sealing should be built in above the backfill
• Drainage is very important and therefore should be long lasting and
controllable
• Abandonment of spandrel walls depending on the conditions
• Application of new technologies to decrease falsework costs
• Usage of new developed natural stone stocks in Europe
• Application of automatic stone cutting techniques
Examples of new stone arch bridges are double-curved arch bridges in
China (1964). Another example is the Kimbolton Butts Bridge, a brick
stone arch bridge constructed in the 1990s in Great Britain.
Such new arch bridges have to fully comply with the safety require-
ments for modern structures.
References 257

References

Al Bosta S (1999) Risse im Mauerwerk. Verformungen infolge von Temperatur


und Schwinden. Baupraktische Beispiele. Werner Verlag 2. Auflage
Angeles-Yáñez M & Alonso AJ (1996) The actual state of the bridge management
system in the state national highway network of Spain. Recent Advances in
Bridge Engineering. Evaluation, management and repair. Proceedings of the
US-Europe Workshop on Bridge Engineering, organized by the Technical
University of Catalonia and the Iowa State University, JR Casas, FW Klaiber
& AR Marí (Eds), Barcelona, 15–17 July 1996, International Center for Nu-
merical Methods in Engineering CIMNE, pp 99–114
Asmar R, Buys JP, Deschamps D, Kassis B, Salame A, Slaha W, Bouchon E &
Vion P (2008) Expertise and repair of Maameltein arch bridge in Lebanon. In:
Forde: Structural Faults and Repair 2008. 12th International conference,
Edinburgh, 10–12th June 2008, Structural faults and repair 2008
Bartuschka P (1995) Instandsetzungsmaßnahmen an hochwertiger Bausubstanz
von Gewölbebrücken. Diplomarbeit. Technische Universität Dresden, Institut
für Tragwerke und Baustoffe
Bati SB & Rovero L (2008) Towards a methodology for estimating strength and
collapse mechanism in masonry arches strengthened with fibre reinforced
polymer applied on external surfaces. Materials and Structures, 41 (7), pp
1291–1306
Bau.de (2008) Bauen und Wohnen im Internet. www.bau.net/woerterbuch/
Bauriegel A (2004) Empfehlung Nr. 3 des Arbeitskreises Geotechnik historischer
Bauwerke und Naturdenkmäler der DGGT: Geotechnische
Schadensfeststellung und -behandlung an historischen Bauwerken. Bautech-
nik, 81 (9), pp 760–765
Beben D & Manko Z (2008) Modernization of old arch bridges by steel shell
structure made from corrugated plates. In: Forde: Structural faults and repair
2008. 12th International conference, 10–12th June 2008, Edinburgh
Beeger D (1992) Naturstein in Dresden, Taschenbuch, Staatliche Naturhistorische
Sammlungen Dresden, Museum für Mineralogie und Geologie
Bergmeister K (2003) Kohlenstofffasern im Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau. Verlag
Ernst und Sohn, Berlin
Bién J & Kamiński T (2004) Masonry arch bridges in Poland. Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C
Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 183–191
Bień J & Kamiński T (2007) Damages to masonry arch bridges – proposal for
terminology unification. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International
Conference on Arch Bridges, PB Lourenço, DV Oliveira & A Portela
(Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira, pp 341–348
Bienert G (1976) Brückenerhaltung. 2. Auflage Transpress Verlag
Bläuer C (1992) Mineralogische Schadenaufnahme und Interpretation der
Schadenursachen an der Nydeggbrücke in Bern. Straße und Verkehr.
Zeitschrift des Vereins Schweizerischer Straßenfachleute 2, pp 88–89
BMV (1988) Bundesminister für Verkehr: Steinbrücken in Deutschland. Beton-
Verlag Düsseldorf
258 6 Damages and Repair

BMVBW (1993) Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen:


Sofortinstandsetzungsmaßnahmen an Brücken und anderen
Ingenieurbauwerken der Bundesfernstraßen in den neuen Bundesländern;
Sammlung von Arbeitshilfen für die Planung und Vergabe, Verkehrsblatt-
Verlag
Boothby TE, Hulet HM & Stanton TR (2004) Inspection, assessment and monitor-
ing of Railroad arch bridges in Sothwestern Pennsylvania. Arch Bridges IV –
Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C
Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 144–151
Boronczyk-Plaska G & Radomski W (2008) Bridge widening – technical, eco-
nomical and aesthetical aspects. Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management,
Health Monitoring and Informatics, H Koh & DM Frangopol (Eds), Taylor &
Francis Group, London, pp 2850–2857
Borri A, Corradi M & Vignoli A (2002) Seismic upgrading of masonry structures
with FRP. Universita’ Degli Studi di Perugia, Facoltà di Ingegneria
Bottesford Living History (2007)
www.bottesfordhistory.org/page_id__242_path__0p25p.aspx
Brencich A & Colla C (2002) The influence of construction technology on the
mechanics of masonry railway bridges, Railway Engineering 2002, 5th Inter-
national Conference, 3–4 July 2002, London
Brookes CL & Mullet PJ (2004) Service load testing, numerical simulations and
strengthening of masonry arch bridges. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in As-
sessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca and C Molins (Eds),
CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 489–498
Como M (1998) Minimum and maximum thrust state in statics of ancient masonry
bridges. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Re-
pair. Proceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference,
A. Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 133–137
COST 345 (2006) European Commission Directorate General Transport and En-
ergy: Procedures Required for Assessing Highway Structures: Working Group
6 Report on remedial measures for highway structures.
http://cost345.zag.si/Reports/COST_345_WG6.pdf
Creazza G & Saetta AV (2001) Analysis of masonry structures reinforced by FRP.
Historical Constructions, PB Lourenço & P Roca (Eds), University of Minho,
Guimarães, pp 539–545
Curbach M, Bösche T, Scheerer S, Michler H, Proske D (2003a) Wiederaufbau
der Pöppelmannbrücke Grimma
Curbach M, Köster T., Proske D, Schmohl L, Taferner J & Ehmann J (2003b)
Parkhäuser, Betonkalender 2004, Teil II, Ernst & Sohn, pp 3–153
Darden C & Scott TJ (2006) Strengthening from Within. Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, Public Roads, http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05mar/07.htm
De Lorenzis L & Nanni A (2004) International Workshop on Preservation of His-
torical Structures with FRP Composites. Final Report. National Science
Foundation, USA, July 2004
DIN 1045-1 (2001) Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton, Teil 1:
Bemessung und Konstruktion, Juli 2001
References 259

DIN 31051 (2003) Maßnahmen zur Verzögerung des Abbaus des vorhandenen
Abnutzungsvorrates
Drdácký MF & Slízková Z (2007) Flood and post-flood performance of historic
stone arch bridges. Proceedings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference
on Arch Bridges, Lourenço, Oliveira & Portela (Eds), 12-14 September 2007,
Madeira. pp 163-170
Drosopoulos GA, Stavroulakis GE & Massalas CV (2007) FRP reinforcement of
stone arch bridges: Unilateral contact models and limit analysis. Composites:
Part B 38, pp 144–151
Falconer RE (1999) Test on masonry arch bridges strengthened using stainless
steel reinforcement. Current and future trends in bridge design, construction
and maintenance in Bridge design construction and maintenance, PC Das, DM
Frangopol & AS Nowak (Eds), Thomas Telford, London, pp 415–423
Fauchoux G & Abdunur C (1998) Strengthening masonry arch bridges through
backfill replacement by concrete. Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assess-
ment, Maintenance and Repair. Proceedings of the Second International Arch
Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli (Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema
Rotterdam, pp 417–422
Fotheringham N (2008) B9136 Ruthven bridge: Stone masonry refurbishment. In:
Forde: Structural Faults and Repair 2008. 12th International conference,
10–12th June 2008, Edinburgh
Ganz H-R (1990) Vorgespanntes Mauerwerk. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt,
Nr. 8. 22. Februar 1990, pp 177–182
Garrecht H (1997) Zum Verhalten bewitterter Mauerwerksoberflächen. In:
Universität Karlsruhe, Sonderforschungsbereich 315 “Erhalten historisch
bedeutsamer Bauwerke”, Jahrbuch 1994, pp 187–198
Garston (1985) The influence of trees on house foundations in clay soils, Building
Research Establishment Digest; Building Research Establishment, 298, pp
13–75
Gocht R (1978) Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten rekonstruierter Eisenbahnge-
wölbebrücken, Dissertation Hochschule für Verkehrswesen “Friedrich List”
Dresden
Günther L, Schäfer J & Schwenke F (1999) Instandsetzung der Friedensbrücke
Bautzen. 9. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, Technische Universität
Dresden, pp 123–150
HA (1997) Highway Agency. BA 16: The assessment of highway bridges. Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges, HMSO, London
Hamid AA, Mahmoud ADS & El Magd SA (1994) Strengthening and repair of
unreinforced masonry structures: State of the Art. Proceedings of the 10th IB2
MaC, Calgary, Canada, 5.–7.July 1994, pp 485–497
Harrison D (2004) The Bridges in Medieval England – Transport and Society
400–800. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Harvey B (2006) Some problems with arch bridge assessment and potential solu-
tions. Structural Engineer, 84 (3), 7th February 2006, pp 45–50
Hodgson JA (2003) The Use of CFRP Plates to strengthen Masonry Arch Bridges.
Extending the Life of Bridges, Concrete and Composites Buildings, Masonry
260 6 Damages and Repair

and Civil Structures, MC Forde (Ed), The Commonwealth Institute, 1st–3rd


July 2003, London
ICOMOS (2008) International Scientific Committee for Stone (ICOMOS-ISCS)
http://lrmh-ext.fr/icomos/consult/consultation.php?lang=1
Jäger W (2006) Rissbilder und Putzabplatzungen bei Mauerwerksbauten –
Ursachen und Strategien zur Schadensbeseitigung, Lehrstuhl
Tragwerksplanung, Fakultät Architektur der TU Dresden
Knoblauch F-J, Laubach A, Sauer W, Schmidt M & Sprinke P (2008) Erneuerung
des Burtscheider Viadukts in Aachen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 103, Heft 3,
pp 195–203
Koettnitz R & Schwenke F (1998) Umbau und Instandsetzung der Marienbrücke
in Dresden. 8. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, Technische Universität
Dresden, pp 139–156
Mabon L (2002) Assessment, strengthening and preservation of masonry struc-
tures for continued use in today’s infrastructures. IABSE symposium,
Melbourne
Martin R & Becker M (2005) Neubau Saalebrücke Süd bei Jena im Zuge der BAB
A 4 – Umsetzung der gestalterischen Vorgaben. 15. Dresdner Brückenbau-
symposium, 15. März 2005, TU Dresden, pp 115–136
Mathur M, Kumar SV & Singh K (2006) Assessment and retrofitting of arch
bridges. www.iricen.gov.in/projects/622/ARCH%20BRIDGE.pdf
Mattheck C, Tesari I & Bethge K (1993) Roots and Buildings. Structural Repair
and Maintenance of Historical Building III (STREMAH), CA Brebbia & RJB
Frewer. Computational Mechanics Publication, Glasgow, pp 751–760
Melbourne C & Tomor AK (2004) Fatigue Performance of Composite and Radial-Pin
Reinforcement on Multi-Ring Masonry Arches. Arch Bridges IV - Ad-vances in
Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, Roca and Molins (Eds),
CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 428–434
Melbourne C (1991) Conservation of masonry arch bridges. In: Proceedings of the
9th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 13.–16. October 1991,
Volume 1, Berlin, Germany, pp 1563–1570
Melchers RE & Faber MH (2001) Aspects of Safety in Design and Assessment of
Deteriorating Structures, Proceedings to the International IABSE Conference
on Safety, Risk and Reliability - Trends in Engineering, March 21-23, Malta
2001, pp 161–166
Meyer MG (2007)
www.spanien-bilder.com/aktuelles_aus_spanien_details3328.htm
Mildner K (1996) Tragfähigkeitsermittlung von Gewölbebrücken auf der
Grundlage von Bauwerksmessungen. 6th Dresdner Brückenbausymposium,
14th March 1996, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität
Dresden, pp 149–162
Miri M & Hughes TG (2004) Increased load capacity of arch bridges using slab
reinforced concrete. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural
Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), pp 469–478
Modena C, Valluzzi MR, da Porto F, Casarin F & Bettio C (2004) Structural up-
grading of a brick masonry arch bridge at the Lido (Venice). Arch Bridges IV –
References 261

Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction, P Roca & C


Molins (Eds), pp 435–443
Müller P (2005) Biomechanische Beschreibung der Baumwurzel und ihre
Verankerung im Erdreich. Dissertation. Fakultät für Maschinenbau,
Universität Karlsruhe
Nodoushani M (1997) Instandsetzung von Natursteinbrücken. Beton-Verlag.
Düsseldorf
Nodoushani M (1998) Natursteingewölbebrücke (... über Fluss Sauer in
Grundsteinheim, Ortsausgang Richtung Igenhausen/Stadt Lichtenau...).
Bausanierung, Gütersloh 9, 4, pp 45–48
Notkus AJ & Dulinskas E (2002) Spatial non-linear analysis of complex structure
“bridge-in-bridge”. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. Vilnius,
Technika, Volume VIII, Suppl 1, pp 29–34
Ochsendorf JA (2002): Collapse of Masonry Structures. University of Cambridge,
Dissertation, Cambridge
Ochsendorf JA, Hernando JI & Huerta S (2004) Collapse of Masonry Buttresses.
Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, September 2004, pp 88–97
Oliveira DV & Lourenço PB (2004) Repair of Stone Masonry Arch Bridges. Arch
Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction,
Roca & Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp 451–458
Orbán Z (2004) Assessment, reliability and maintenance of masonry arch railway
bridges in Europe. Arch Bridges IV – Advances in Assessment, Structural
Design and Construction, P Roca & C Molins (Eds), CIMNE, Barcelona, pp
152–161
Owen DR, Peric D, Petrinic N, Smokes C & James PJ (2005) Finite/Discrete Ele-
ment Models for Assessment and Repair of Masonry Structures.
www.cintec.com
Page J (1996) A guide to repair and strengthening of masonry arch highway
bridges. TRL Report 204, TRL Limited, Crowthorne
Panizza M, Garbin E, Valluzzi MR & Modena C (2008) FRP Strengthening –
shear mechanism of brick masonry vaults. In: Forde: Structural Faults and
Repair 2008. 12th International conference, 10–12th June 2008, Edinburgh
Parikh SK & Patwardhan YG (1999) Widening of an existing old masonry arch
bridge through RCC box girder deck. Current and Future Trends in Bridge
Design, Construction and Maintenance in Bridge Design Construction and
Maintenance, PC Das, DM Frangopol & AS Nowak (Eds), Thomas Telford,
London, pp 218–226
Patzschke F (1996) Der Wahrener Viadukt in Leipzig – Rekonstruktion einer
Gewölbebrücke der DB AG. 6. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 14.3.1996,
Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 135–148
Poschlod K (1990) Das Wasser im Porenraum kristalliner Naturwerksteine und
sein Einfluss auf die Verwitterung. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil Verlag
Proske D (1997) Textilbewehrter Beton als Verstärkung von Platten, 34.
Forschungskolloquium des Deutschen Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Technische
Universität Dresden, Institut für Tragwerke und Baustoffe, Dresden, pp 51–58
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung alter Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
262 6 Damages and Repair

Proske D (2009) Brücken unter alpinen Stoßeinwirkungen. Proceedings of the


19th Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 9–10 March 2009, Dresden
Reintjes K-H (2002) Die Unterfangung des Bahrmühlenviadukts Erfahrungen aus
der Bauabwicklung. 12. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 14. März 2002, TU
Dresden, pp 145–163
Reul H (1994) Handbuch Bautenschutz Bausanierung, Verlag Müller
Ricamato M (2007) Numerical and experimental analysis of masonry arches
strengthened with FRP materials. University of Cassino, Department of Engi-
neering, Graduate School in Civil Engineering, PhD thesis
Rombock U (1994) Restaurierung von Steinbrücken. Informationszentrum Raum
und Bau der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, 2., erweiterte Auflage, IRB-Verlag,
Stuttgart
Rota M (2004) Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry Arch Bridge Walls. European
School of Advance Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Rose School, Dis-
sertation
Ruffert G (1981) Sanierung von Baudenkmälern, Beton-Verlag
Sauder M & Wiesen H (1993) Sanierung von Bauwerken aus Naturstein,
Taschenbuch, Landesinstitut für Bauwesen NRW
Scheidler J (1992) Umbau und Verbreiterung von Bogen- und Gewölbebrücken.
Würzburger Betonseminare der LGA Bayern am 11.–12. März 1992, Oberste
Baubehörde Bayerns
Schueremans L, Van Rickstall F, Ignoul S, Brosens K, Van Balen K & Van
Gemert D (2003) Continuous Assessment of Historic Structures – A State of
the Art of applied Research and Practice in Belgium, KULeuven, Department
of Civil Engineering
Schwartz J (1988) Sanierung der historischen Werrabrücke 1986–1988:
Schadensanalyse und Sanierungskonzept. Werrabrücken Münden –
Geschichte und Sanierung 1986–1988, pp 25–33
Siwowski T & Sobala D (2008) The revitalization of XIX century masonry arch
bridge. In: Forde: Structural Faults and Repair 2008. 12th International con-
ference, 10–12th June 2008, Edinburgh
Sobrino JA (2007) Extending the life of masonry and concrete arch bridges.
Structural Engineering International, 17 (4), pp 328–336
Standfuß F & Thomass S (1987) Grundsätze der baulichen Maßnahmen an alten
Steinbrücken. Bausubstanz, Nr. 3, p 28
Steele K, Cole G, Parke G, Clarke B & Harding J (2006): Application of life cycle
assessment technique in the investigation of brick arch highway bridges. Pro-
ceedings of the 2002 Conference for the Engineering Doctorate in Environ-
mental Technology,
http://www.cintec.co.uk/en/applications/Archtec/documents/Chapter05_4.htm
Strasser A (2006) Vorlesung Altern, Institut für Physiologie, Veterinärmedizinische
Universität Wien, Vienna
Stritzke J (2007) Bogen- und Stabbogenbrücken. In: Handbuch Brücken,
Mehlhorn (Ed), Springer Verlag, Berlin – Heidelberg
Switaiski B (2006) Ein systematischer Ansatz für eine Strategie zur Gewährleistung
der Sicherheit von Gebäuden. Proceedings of the 4th International
Probabilistic Symposium 2006, Medianpour (Eds), Gucma & Proske, BAM
Berlin.
References 263

Tilly GP & Brookes CL (2005) Archtec Strengthening of Masonry Arch Bridges.


www.cintec.com
Tingle B & Heelbeck M (1995) The Management of a new County’s Bridge Stock
Humberside 20 Years on. Arch Bridges, C Melbourne (Ed), Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Arch Bridges, Bolton, Thomas Telford,
London, pp 37–46
Troyano LF (2003) Bridge Engineering – A Global Perspective. Thomas Telford
UIC-codex (1995) Empfehlungen für die Bewertung des Tragvermögens
bestehender Gewölbebrücken aus Mauerwerk und Beton. Internationaler
Eisenbahnverband. 1. Ausgabe 1.7.1995
Ullrich M (1989) Statusbericht über Forschungsarbeiten zur ingenieurmäßigen
Sicherung von historischem Mauerwerk durch Verpressen, Vernadeln und
Vorspannen. Bautenschutz + Bausanierung 12, pp 19–27
Ural A, Oruc S, Dogangün A & Iskender Tuluk Ö (2008) Turkish historical arch
bridges and their deteriorations and failures. Engineering Failure Analysis 15,
pp 43–53
Valluzzi MR & Modena C (2001) Experimental analysis and modelling of ma-
sonry vaults strengthened by FRP. Historical Constructions, PB Lourenço &
P Roca (Eds), Guimarães, pp 627–635
Vockrodt HJ (2005) Instandsetzung historischer Bogenbrücken im Spannungsfeld
von Denkmalschutz und modernen infrastrukturellen Anforderungen. 15.
Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 15. März 2005, Dresden, pp 221–241
Vockrodt HJ, Feistel D & Stubbe J (2003) Handbuch Instandsetzung von
Massivbrücken. Untersuchungsmethoden und Instandsetzungsverfahren.
Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag
Walthelm U (1990) Rissbildungen und Bruchmechanismen in freistehenden
Wänden aus Beton und Mauerwerk. Bautechnik 67, Heft 1, pp 21–26
Walthelm U (1991) Theoretische Spannungszustände, Rissbildungen und
Traglasten von einachsig ausmittig gedrückten Rechteckquerschnitten.
Bautechnik 68, Heft 6, pp 206–212
Weber H (1993) Instandsetzung von feuchte- und salzgeschädigtem Mauerwerk.
expert-Verlag. Ehningen bei Böblingen
Weber WK (1999) Die gewölbte Eisenbahnbrücke mit einer Öffnung.
Begriffserklärungen, analytische Fassung der Umrisslinien und ein erweitertes
Hybridverfahren zur Berechnung der oberen Schranke ihrer
Grenztragfähigkeit, validiert durch einen Großversuch. Dissertation, Lehrstuhl
für Massivbau der Technischen Universität München
Weiss G (1992) Die Eis- und Salzkristallisation im Porenraum von Sandsteinen
und ihre Auswirkungen auf das Gefüge unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
gesteinsspezifischer Parameter. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil Verlag
Welch PJ (1995) Renovation of masonry bridges. Arch Bridges, C Melbourne
(Ed), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Arch Bridges,
Bolton, Thomas Telford, London, pp 601–611
Wenzel F (Ed) (1997): Mauerwerk – Untersuchen und Instandsetzen durch
Injizieren, Vernadeln und Vorspannen. Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
264 6 Damages and Repair

Bauwerke. Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Sonderforschungsbereich 315,


Universität Karlsruhe
Wihr R (1980) Restaurierung von Steindenkmälern, Verlag Callwey
Witzany J, Čejka T & Zigler R (2008) Experimental research of masonry vaults
strengthening. In: Forde: Structural Faults and Repair 2008. 12th International
conference, 10–12th June 2008, Edinburgh
Woodward RJ (1997) Strengthening arch bridges. Annual Review 1997, TRL
Limited, Crowthorne
Zahn A (1999) Wieder ganz tragfähig – Kulturhistorisch wertvoller
Brückenbau gerettet und heutigen Verkehrsanforderungen angepasst.
Bautenschutz und Bausanierung. Köln 22, pp 29–30
7 Safety Assessment

7.1 Definition of Safety and Safety Concepts

Structures have to be safe. However, there is no common understanding of


the term “safety.” Often the term “safety” is defined as a situation with a
lower risk compared to an acceptable risk or as a situation “without any
impending danger.” Other definitions describe safety as “peace of mind.”
Whereas the first definition using the term “risk” is already based on a
substitution, the later term using “peace of mind” is a better definition. The
authors consider “safety” to be the result of an evaluation process of a cer-
tain situation. The evaluation can be carried out by every system that is
able to perform a decision-making process, such as animals, humans, so-
cieties, or computers that use some algorithms. However, algorithms usu-
ally use some numerical representation, such as risk R, for the description
of safety S:
existing R ≤ permitted R → S (7-1)
existing R > permitted R → S
In contrast, the authors consider not only numerical presentations as re-
sults of decision-making processes, but also human feelings. Therefore,
safety is understood here as a feeling. The decision-making process focus-
es mainly on preservation. Furthermore, the decision-making process deals
with whether some resources have to be spent to decrease hazards and
danger to an acceptable level. In other terms, “safety” is a feeling, which
describes that no further resources have to be spent to decrease any threats.
If one considers the term “no further resources have to be spent” as a de-
gree of freedom of resources, one can define “safety” as a value of a func-
tion that includes the degree of freedom of resources. Furthermore, one can
assume that the degree of freedom is related to some degree of distress and
relaxation. Whereas in safe conditions relaxation occurs, in dangerous sit-
uations a high degree of distress is clearly reached.

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_7,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
266 7 Safety Assessment

The possible shape of the function between degree of relaxation, which


ranges from “danger” to “peace of mind,” and the value of the function as
degree of freedom of resources is shown in Fig. 7-1. It is assumed here that
the relationship is nonlinear, with at least one region of over proportional
growth of the relative freedom of resources. In Figure 7-1, this region of
over proportional growth is defined as the starting point of the safety
region:
S = { x | f ′′( x ) = 0} (7-2)

However, the question still remains: where does the region of safety
start since other points are possible? Such further points can be located
either at regions of maximum curvature or at the point of inflection.

Fig. 7-1. Definition of “safety“ (Proske 2008a)

In general, safety is a general requirement for humans. This claim is


manifested in many laws, like the human rights of the United Nations, the
German constitution with the right to life and personal integrity, the Prod-
uct Liability Act, civil code, or some administrative fiats. Codes of prac-
tice are administrative fiats and state the requirement that structures have
to be safe (Proske 2008b). Also, in the sense of building laws, structures
have to be safe and should not endanger public safety, life, and health. Es-
pecially in the codes, safety is understood as capability of structures to res-
ist loads. Reliability is then understood as a measure to provide this capa-
bility in different engineering fields. Here, a change from the general
qualitative statement to a quantitative statement becomes obvious. This is
very important for the engineers: now the engineer is enabled to prove
safety by computation. The reliability is meanly understood as probability
of failure (Fig. 7-2). Risk, which would be an alternative measure of
7.1 Definition of Safety and Safety Concepts 267

(un)safety, is only considered for accidental loads. Then, a comparison bet-


ween different accidental loads and emergency situations is possible
(Proske 2008b).

Fig. 7-2. Probability of failure for two random variables. First, (A) and (C) statis-
tical data about the load and the strength are investigated. Then, a statistical inves-
tigation is carried out (B) and (D). Both distribution functions resulting from the
statistical investigation are then merged to (E) further introducing a limit state
function g(X). In (F), the two-dimensional distribution function is shown in three-
dimensional illustrations of the probability of failure

The choice of probability of failure determines stochasticity as the basis


for the exposure of indeterminacy and uncertainty. Other concepts, like
fuzzy-sets, rough-sets, Grey numbers, or further mathematical techniques
are not considered. However, research is carried out in this field. Figure
7-3 shows the different safety concepts for structures over time.
268
7 Safety Assessment

Fig. 7-3. Different safety concepts for structures


7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 269

The current probabilistic or semiprobabilistic safety concept in struc-


tural engineering assumes that the exact value of many design variables is
unknown. This uncertainty is based on
• Random aberrations of characteristic values of the structural resistance
• Random aberrations by transferring laboratory test results to the struc-
ture
• Random aberrations of cross-section sizes and other geometrical meas-
ures
• Geometric imperfections
• Random aberrations of internal forces like moments, shear forces, or
axial forces
• Inherent uncertainties in the choice of characteristic value of loads
• Differences in the models for the loads
However, the stochastic models do not consider systematical errors like
computational errors in structural design processes or bad workmanship.
Such errors have to be avoided by control mechanisms (DIN 1055-100
1999).

7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept

7.2.1 Introduction

First proposals about probabilistic-based safety concepts can be found by


Mayer (1926) in Germany and Chocialov (1929) in the Soviet Union
(Murzewski 1974). In the third decade of the 20th century, the number of
people working in that field had already increased, just to mention
Streleckij (1935) in the Soviet Union, Wierzbicki (1936) in Poland, and
Prot (1936) in France (Murzewski 1974). Already in 1944 in the Soviet
Union, the introduction of the probabilistic safety concept for structures
had been forced by politicians (Tichý 1976). The development of probabil-
istic safety concepts in general experienced a strong impulse during and
after World War II, not only in the field of structures but also in the
field of aeronautics. In 1947, Freudenthal (1947) published his famous
work about the safety of structures. Until now, a model code for the pro-
babilistic safety concept of structures has been published by the JCSS (2004).
The probability of failure pf as proof measure for safety is computed as
function of the design values x. It can be referred to one year or the life-
time of the structures:
270 7 Safety Assessment

(7-3)

p f = ... ∫
g (X) ≤ 0
f X ( x )dx

p f (n) = 1 − (1 − p f ) n . (7-4)

The safety index is defined as the inverse Gauss standard distribution of


the probability of failure:
β = −Φ −1 ( pf ). (7-5)

Results are given in Table 7-1. The integration of the probability of fail-
ure volume can then be transferred into an optimization task to determine
the safety index. This is shown in Figs. 7-4 and 7-5.
The explained safety concept can be found in many regulations, such as
Eurocode 1 (1994), DIN 1055-100 (1999), GruSiBau (1981), and JCSS
Modelcode (2004). In these regulations, goal values for safety indexes can
also be found. These values are then the basis for the estimation of safety
factors, which are introduced for practical reasons.

Table 7-1. Conversion of probability of failure to safety index


Probability10–12 10–11 10–10 10–9 10–8 10–7 10–6 10–5 10–4 10–3 10–2 10–1 0.5
of failure
Safety 7.03 6.71 6.36 5.99 5.61 5.19 4.75 4.26 3.72 3.09 2.33 1.28 0.0
index

7.2.2 First-order Reliability Method (FORM)

Since structures should feature a low probability of failure, the computa-


tion of the multidimensional probability may be simplified due to the low
value. The simplification explained in this section increases the speed of
the computation tremendously compared to a numerical integration of a
multidimensional space.
In general, the simplification is based on the transfer of the integration
of a multidimensional volume into an extreme value task. The result of this
extreme value computation is the substitute measure safety index. The
safety index itself describes the shortest distance between the origin in a
standard normal distributed space and the limit state function, g(X). A rela-
tionship between the probability of failure volume and the distance ex-
pressed by the safety index exists in this space (Table 7-1).
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 271

The standard normal distribution is characterized by a normal distribu-


tion with a mean value of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The general as-
sumption of this procedure is the transformability of all arbitrary random
distribution functions into standard normal distribution functions. The sec-
ond assumption is the linearization of the limit state function. The lineari-
zation gave the following name for the technique: first-order reliability
method (FORM). The point of linearization on the limit state function is
the so-called design point. This point is characterized by maximum prob-
ability of failure at the limit state function.

Fig. 7-4. Transfer of the probability volume into an extreme value computation

Fig. 7-5. Visualization of FORM

However, a FORM computation not only delivers the safety index as re-
sult, but also measures which may be useful to compute partial safety fac-
tors, characteristic values, and design values. These values can be found in
many codes of practice and indicate the strong relationship between the
272 7 Safety Assessment

codes and this probabilistic safety concept. Therefore, current safety con-
cepts are called semiprobabilistic safety concepts.
In the following paragraphs, the FORM-methodology will be introduced
in detail. The method is often called the Rackwitz-Fießler (Fießler et al.
1976) algorithm or normal tail approximation. In general, the concept is
based on the fundamental work by Hasofer and Lind (1974).
In the procedure, first the non-normal distributed random variables have
to be transferred into normal random variables. The following formulas
will be used
1 ⎛ x i − m xi ⎞
* *
(7-6)
f xi ( x i ) = * ϕ ⎜
*

σ xi ⎜⎝ σ xi ⎟⎠
*

⎛ xi* − m*x ⎞ (7-7)


Fxi ( xi* ) = Φ ⎜ i

⎜ σ x* ⎟
⎝ i ⎠
with xi* as design point, m*xi as mean value, and σ*xi as standard devia-
tion of the normal distribution. Since the normal distribution should be
used as an approximation of the original distribution, mean value and stan-
dard deviation have to be computed by rearranging the formulas
1 (7-8)
σ x*i = *
ϕ (Φ −1 (Fxi ( xi* )))
f xi ( x i )

m*xi = xi* − σ x*i Φ −1 (Fxi ( xi* )) . (7-9)

After that, an iteration cycle with the following steps is started:


1. Define an iteration counter k = 0 and chose a design point for the first
iteration.
2. Transfer all non-normal distributed random variables into normal dis-
tributed random variables according to the following equations, with
i = 1, 2, …, m and m as number of random variables considered:
1 (7-10)
σ x*( k ) = ϕ (Φ −1 (Fxi ( xi( k ) )))
i
f xi ( xi( k ) )

m*(xi k ) = xi( k ) − σ x( ik ) Φ −1 (Fxi ( xi( k ) )) . (7-11)

3. Compute the value of xi( k ) in the standardized space yi( k ) :


7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 273

xi( k ) − m*(xi k ) (7-12)


y (k)
= .
i
σ x*( k )
i

4. Compute the limit state function and the first derivative at yi( k ) :

h(y( k ) ) = g(x( k ) ) (7-13)

∂h ∂g ∂xi ∂g (7-14)
= ⋅ = ⋅ σ*(i k ) .
∂y i y = y( k )
∂x i x = x( k )
∂yi ∂x i x = x( k )

5. Compute the coefficients of the tangential hyperplane at h( y) = 0 at


point yi( k ) :

∂h (7-15)
∂y i y = y( k )
α(i k ) = 1/ 2
⎛ m ⎛ ⎞
2

⎜ ⎜ ∂h ⎟
⎜∑


⎜ j =1 ⎜⎝ ∂y j ⎟
⎠ ⎟
⎝ y=y

(k)

m
∂h (7-16)
h( y( k ) ) − ∑ y(jk )
j =1 ∂y j
y = y( k )
δ( k ) = 1/ 2
.
⎛ m ⎛ ⎞
2

⎜ ⎜ ∂h ⎟
⎜∑


⎜ j =1 ⎜⎝ ∂y j ⎟
⎠ ⎟
⎝ y=y

(k)

6. Compute a new estimation of the design point in the original space


for i = 1, 2, … , m:
xi( k +1) = m*(x k ) − α i*( k ) ⋅ σ x*( k ) ⋅ δ ( k ) .
i i
(7-17)

7. Verify if xi( k +1) ≈ xi( k ) . If it is fulfilled, then the design point has been
found and the safety index is β = δ with h(0) > 0. If it is not fulfilled,
then the iteration starts again with Step 2.
This method is very practicable and has experienced a major spreading.
It gives fast and accurate results if the probability of failure is small, the
random distribution functions do not diverge too strong from the normal
distribution, and the limit state function does not show a strong curvature.
274 7 Safety Assessment

7.2.3 Second-order Reliability Method (SORM)

7.2.3.1 Breitung’s method


If the limit state function shows a strong curvature, then the curvature has
to be considered in the computation of the safety index (Fig. 7-6). This can
be done by the second-order reliability method. Here, the curvature of the
limit state function is approximated using
1 (7-18)
h ( y) = h ( y * ) + ( y − y* ) T ⋅ ∇ h ( y * ) + ( y − y * ) T ⋅ B y ⋅ ( y − y* ) = 0 .
2

Fig. 7-6. Visualization of SORM

By is the matrix of the second and mixed derivates from h(y) in the stan-
dardized space at the design point. Breitung (1984) has introduced the fol-
lowing equation with ai and i = 1, 2, … , m-1 as principal curvature of h at
the design point in the standard normal space
m −1 (7-19)
Pf = Φ(− β )∏ (1 − β ⋅ ai ) −1/ 2 .
i =1

However, the computation of the principal curvatures represents the ma-


jor part of this method. To compute the principal curvatures, a rotation of
the coordinate system is required. The rotation requires orthogonalizing
using the Schmidt process.
The old and new coordinates are linked as follows:
y = D⋅u . (7-20)
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 275

After the rotation the new coordinates can be computed as


u = DT ⋅ y . (7-21)

The matrix D consists of


D = (d1 , d 2 ,..., d m )T (7-22)

with
d1 = α (7-23)
f
dk = k
fk
and
k −1 (7-24)
f k = e k − ∑ (eTk d l )d l
l =1

k = 2, 3, ..., m .
and ek is the kth unit vector. In the new system,
u* = DT y * = ( β ,0,0,...,0)T (7-25)

and

⎛ ∂g ⎞
T (7-26)
∇gu = D ⋅ ∇h = ⎜ u ,0,0,...,0 ⎟ .
⎝ ∂u1 ⎠

gu ( u * ) = 0 (7-27)

Bu = DT B y D (7-28)

Taylor’s theorem becomes


∂gu 1 (7-29)
(u1 − u1* ) ⋅ + ( u − u * )T ⋅ B u ⋅ ( u − u * ) = 0 .
∂u1 2
The principal curvatures are the roots of the following equation:
⎛ B ˆ ⎞ (7-30)
det ⎜ u
− a⋅I⎟ = 0 ,
⎜ ∂g / ∂u ⎟
⎝ u 1 ⎠
276 7 Safety Assessment

ˆ is the matrix of the second and mixed derivates, and can be


When Bu

derived by deleting the first line and first column from Bu , I is the identity
matrix.
The approximation by Breitung gives good results, if the curvature of
the limit state function still is not too strong and the safety index is small.

7.2.3.2 Tvedt’s method


Tvedt (1988) has introduced an extension of Breitung’s formulae:
γ = 1 − Pf (7-31)

γ = 1 − ( A1 + A2 + A3 ) (7-32)

with
n −1 (7-33)
A1 = Φ(− β )∏ (1 + β ⋅ a j ) −1/ 2
j =1

⎧⎪ n −1 n −1
⎫⎪ (7-34)
A2 = [ β ⋅ Φ(− β ) − ϕ ( β )] ⋅ ⎨∏ (1 + β ⋅ a j )−1/ 2 − ∏ (1 + ( β + 1) a j )−1/ 2 ⎬
⎩⎪ j =1 j =1 ⎭⎪

A3 = ( β + 1)[ β ⋅ Φ(− β ) − ϕ ( β )] (7-35)


⎧⎪ n −1 ⎡ n −1 ⎤ ⎫⎪
⋅ ⎨∏ (1 + β ⋅ a j ) −1/ 2 − Re ⎢∏ (1 + ( β + i) ⋅ a j ) −1/ 2 ⎥ ⎬ .
⎪⎩ j =1 ⎣ j =1 ⎦ ⎪⎭
The extension of Breitung’s formula provides accurate results with low
and semi-low probabilities of failure. High probabilities of failure and
negative curvatures are not covered by the method. A further improvement
was done by the so-called Tvedt’s exact solution for parabolic limit state
function. Here, the size of the probability of failure is not limited:
γ = 1 − Pf (7-36)

1

⎡ 1 n −1 ⎤ exp(−1/ 2θ 2 ) (7-37)
γ = 0.5 +
π ∫0 ⎣
sin ⎢ β ⋅ θ + ∑ arctan( a jθ ) ⎥ n −1 dθ .
2 j =1 ⎦ θ (1 + a 2θ 2 )1/ 4
∏j =1
j

The disadvantage of this method is the requirement of a numerical


integration.
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 277

7.2.3.3 Method by Köylüoglu and Nielsen


Additionally, Köylüoglu and Nielsen (1994) have tried to improve the ac-
curacy of SORM methods for higher probabilities of failure. They also
formulate
γ = 1 − Pf . (7-38)

Assuming that all curvatures ai are positive, then


n −1
1
γ = 1 − Φ (−β)∏
j =1 1 + a j / c0,1
⎧ ⎡⎛ n −1 ⎞
2
n −1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
2
⎪ 1 n −1 ak 1 ak ak
⋅ ⎨1 + c1,1 ∑ + c2,1 ⎜ ∑
⎢ + 2∑ ⎜ ⎥
2 1 + a / c 4 ⎢ ⎜ k =1 1 + a / c ⎟⎟ ⎜ 1 + a / c ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎪⎩ k =1 k 0,1
⎣⎝ k 0,1 ⎠ k =1 ⎝ k 0,1 ⎠

1 ⎡⎛ n −1 ⎞ ⎛ n −1 ⎛ ⎞ ⎞
3 2
ak ⎞ ⎛ n −1 ak ak
+ c3,1 ⎢⎜ ∑ ⎟ + 2 ⎜⎜ ∑ ⎟⎟ ∑ ⎜⎜
⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
8 ⎢⎜⎝ k =1 1 + ak / c0,1 ⎟⎠ ⎝ k =1 1 + a / c ⎜
0,1 ⎠ k =1 ⎝ 1 + a / c0,1 ⎠ ⎟
⎣ k
⎝ k

⎛ n −1 ⎞
3
⎤ ⎫
⎥ +…⎬⎪ .
ak
+12∑ ⎜ ⎟⎟

k =1 ⎝ 1 + ak / c0,1 ⎠ ⎥
⎦ ⎪⎭

(7-39)
If all curvatures ai are negative, then
n −1
1
γ = 1 − Φ(+β)∏
j =1 1 − a j / c0,2
⎧ n −1 ⎡⎛ n −1 ⎞
2
n −1 ⎛ ⎞
2

⎪ 1 ak 1 ak ak
⋅ ⎨1 + c1,2 ∑ + c2,2 ⎢⎜ ∑ ⎟⎟ + 2∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
k =1 1 − ak / c0,2

⎢⎝ k =1 1 − ak / c0,2 k =1 ⎝ 1 + ak / c0,2 ⎥
⎪⎩ 2 4
⎣ ⎠ ⎠ ⎦

1 ⎡⎛ n −1 ak ⎞
3
⎛ n −1 ak ⎞ ⎛ n −1 ⎛ ak ⎞
2

+ c3,2 ⎢⎜ ∑ ⎟⎟ + 2 ⎜⎜ ∑ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟

⎢⎝ k =1 1 + ak / c0,2
8
⎣ ⎠ ⎝ k =1 1 + ak / c0,2 ⎠ ⎝⎜ k =1 ⎝ 1 + ak / c0,2 ⎠ ⎟

⎛ n −1 ⎞
3
⎤ ⎫
⎥ + …⎪⎬ .
ak
+12∑ ⎜ ⎟⎟

k =1 ⎝ 1 + ak / c0,2 ⎥
⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎭

(7-40)
278 7 Safety Assessment

The generalized form is given as follows:


⎡ n −1 1 ⎧⎪ 1 n −1
ak ⎪⎫
(7-41)
γ = Φ( β ) + Φ( − β ) ⎢∏ ⎨1 + d1,2 ∑ + …⎬
⎢⎣ j = m 1 − a j / d0,2 ⎪⎩ 2 k = m 1 − ak / c0,2 ⎭⎪
⎧⎪ m −1 1 ⎪⎧ 1 m −1 ak ⎫⎫⎤
⎪⎪
⋅ ⎨1 − ∏ ⎨1 + c1,1 ∑ + …⎬⎬⎥
⎩⎪ j =1 1 + a j / c0,1 ⎪⎩ 2 k = m 1 + ak / c0,1 ⎪⎭⎭⎪⎦⎥
⎡ m −1 1 ⎧⎪ 1 m −1 ak ⎫⎪
− Φ ( β ) ⎢∏ ⎨1 + d1,1 ∑ + …⎬
k =1 1 + ak / c0,1
⎣⎢ j =1 1 + a j / d0,1 ⎩⎪ ⎪⎭
2

⎧⎪ n −1 1 ⎪⎧ 1 n −1
ak ⎫⎫⎤
⎪⎪
⋅ ⎨1 − ∏ ⎨ 1 + c1,2 ∑ + …⎬⎬⎥ .
⎪⎩ j = m 1 − a j / c0,2 ⎩⎪ 2 k =1 1 − ak / c0,2 ⎭⎪⎪⎭⎦⎥
Based on the cut-off of the terms, different approximation formulations
can be derived. For one term with positive curvature, the coefficient becomes
Φ( − β ) (7-42)
c0,1 =
ϕ (β )
and c1,1 = c2,1 = … = 0 . If two terms are chosen, then the coefficients can
be computed as

Φ( − β ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ (7-43)
c0,1 = ⎜⎜ ⎟
ϕ ( β ) ⎝ 1 + 1 − βΦ(− β ) / ϕ ( β ) ⎟⎠

ϕ (β ) βΦ(− β ) (7-44)
c1,1 = 1−
Φ(− β ) ϕ (β )
and c2,1 = c3,1 = … = 0 . With three terms, one achieves

1 ϕ (β ) (7-45)
− c1,1 =
c0,1 Φ( − β )

1 c βϕ ( β ) (7-46)
− 2 1,1 + 2c2,1 =
2
c0,1 c0,1 Φ(− β )
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 279

1 c1,1 c2,1 ( β 2 − 1)ϕ ( β ) (7-47)


− 3 + 6 = .
3
c0,1 2
c0,1 c0,1 Φ(− β )

The three equations can be summarized to a cubic equation with at least


one positive solution. The solution of c0,1 less than the value assessed with
the following formulae should be taken:

Φ(− β ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ (7-48)
c0,1 = ⎜⎜ ⎟
ϕ ( β ) ⎝ 1 + 1 − βΦ(− β ) / ϕ ( β ) ⎟⎠

Based on the cut off of the terms, different approximation formulations can
be derived. For one term with negative curvature, the coefficient becomes
Φ( β ) (7-49)
c0,2 =
ϕ (β )
and c1,2 = c2,2 = … = 0 . If two terms are chosen, then the coefficients
can be computed as

Φ( β ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ (7-50)
c0,2 = ⎜⎜ ⎟
ϕ ( β ) ⎝ 1 + 1 + βΦ( β ) / ϕ ( β ) ⎟⎠

−ϕ ( β ) βΦ( β ) (7-51)
c1,2 = 1+
Φ( β ) ϕ (β )
and c2,2 = c3,2 = … = 0 . With three terms, one achieves

1 ϕ (β ) (7-52)
+ c1,2 =
c0,2 Φ( β )

1 c βϕ ( β ) (7-53)
+ 2 1,2 + 2c2,2 = −
2
c0,2 c0,2 Φ( β )

1 c1,2 c2,2 ( β 2 − 1)ϕ ( β ) (7-54)


+ 3 + 6 =
3
c0,2 2
c0,2 c0,2 Φ(− β )

Again, the three equations can be summarized in to a cubic equation


with at least one positive solution. The solution of c0,2 less than the value
assessed with the following formulae should be taken.
280 7 Safety Assessment

Φ( β ) ⎛ 1 ⎞ (7-55)
c0,2 = ⎜⎜ ⎟
ϕ ( β ) ⎝ 1 + 1 − β Φ( β ) / ϕ ( β ) ⎟⎠

If the d-terms are approximated, one achieves for a d0,1 = 2c0,1 ,


d0,2 = 2c0,2 d1,1 = d2,1 = … = 0 and d1,2 = d2,2 = … = 0 one-term formulation.

7.2.3.4 Method by Cai and Elishakoff


Cai and Elishakoff (1994) also try to improve Breitung’s method by ex-
tending the original formulae into a Taylor theorem. The application is
quite simple:
1 ⎛ β2 ⎞ (7-56)
Pf = Φ( β ) + exp ⎜ − ⎟ ( D1 + D2 + D3 + …) .
2π ⎝ 2 ⎠
The single elements of the Taylor theorem are
D1 = ∑ λ j (7-57)
j

1 ⎛ ⎞ (7-58)
D2 = − β ⎜ 3 ⋅ ∑ λ j2 + ∑ λ j λk ⎟
2 ⎝ j j ≠k ⎠

1 ⎛ ⎞ (7-59)
D3 = ( β 2 − 1) ⎜ 15 ⋅ ∑ λ j3 + 9 ⋅ ∑ λ j2 λk + ∑ λ j λk λl ⎟ .
6 ⎝ j j ≠k j ≠k ≠l ⎠
The basis for the computation of the elements is again the principal cur-
vatures. However, these values have already been computed, if Breitung’s
formulae were employed:
a j = −2 λ j . (7-60)

7.2.3.5 Further developments


The latest SORM method was introduced by Zhao and Ono (1999a, b) and
by Polidori et al. (1999). The first method is based on the inverse fast Fou-
rier transformation (IFFT). These methods will not be explained here.
However, it should be noted that Zhao and Ono (1999a) not only give a
summary about the conditions under which the different introduced SORM
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 281

methods perform well, but also impose recommendations on when to use


FORM, when to use SORM methods, and when to use their own method
(Zhao and Ono 1999c). However, Breitung (2002) has criticized some as-
sumptions of the method by Zhao and Ono.

7.2.4 Hypersphere Division Method

Additional to the optimization procedure using Cartesian coordinates, the


search for the minimum distance can also be carried out in spherical coor-
dinates (see Fig. 7-7). After transformation into spherical coordinates, the
angle and radius of a search vector are systematically adapted to find the
minimum distance.

Fig. 7-7. Hypersphere division method

7.2.5 Response Surface Method

The probabilistic methods introduced so far required an analytically closed


known limit state function g(X). In other words, the limit state function
should be one formula. However, in many cases, such as the computation
of the ultimate load of an arch bridge, this requirement cannot be fulfilled.
For example, consider a finite element program code. In those cases, the
mathematical procedure has to be approximated by a surrogate, to reach to
an acceptable computation when the aforementioned techniques like
FORM and SORM are used. A procedure to develop such a surrogate is
the response surface methodology. In this methodology, a simplified more
282 7 Safety Assessment

dimensional function is computed based on some sample results of the ex-


tensive mathematical procedure originally established. The concept is easily
understood when the complicated mathematical computations are substituted
by some laboratory or field tests. There also, no function is known, but
should be introduced. Based on the test results, a function will be intro-
duced. Some general works about the concept can be found in Box and
Draper (1987) and applications in structural engineering are mentioned in
Bucher and Bourgund (1990) and Rajashekhar and Ellingwood (1993).
The concept can be described as follows. A certain function with the in-
put variables X and some functional constants K is given with
g = f ( X,K ) (7-61)
but can only be pointwise solved. Therefore, an approximation function
should be developed
g = f ( X,K ) . (7-62)
There are many different types of mathematical approximation func-
tions. Probably the most applied methods are quadratic functions, either
n n (7-63)
g~ = a + ∑ bi ⋅ xi + ∑ ci ⋅ xi2
i =1 i =1

or with mixed terms


g~ = A + XT ⋅ B + XT ⋅ C ⋅ X (7-64)

with A, B and C as constants.


⎛ B1 ⎞ ⎛ C11 C12 … C1n ⎞ (7-65)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ B2 ⎟ ⎜ C21 ⎟.
B= , C=
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ Bn ⎠ ⎝ Cn1 Cnn ⎟⎠

These constants can be computed based on the pointwise solutions. De-


pending on the number of pointwise solutions, there is an under determined
number of solutions situation, an exact number, or an over determined
number of solutions to compute K. If an over determined number of solu-
tions exist, then some minimum error methods should be applied. For the
exact number of the solutions, the degrees of freedom of functions depend-
ing on the type of the function are shown in Table 7-2. Shapes of solutions
points are shown in Fig. 7-8.
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 283

Table 7-2. Degrees of freedom for certain response surface functions (Weiland 2003)
Approximation function Degrees of freedom
g( x )
n
Linear regression g( x) = a + ∑ bi ⋅ xi n +1
i =1
n n n
Quadratic function g( x ) = a + ∑ bi ⋅ xi + ∑∑ cij ⋅ xi ⋅ x j 1
2 ⋅ (n + 1) ⋅ (n + 2)
including mixed terms i =1 i =1 j =1
n n
Quadratic function with- g( x ) = a + ∑ bi ⋅ xi + ∑ xi2 2n + 1
out mixed terms i =1 i =1

Polynomial third order


… 1
2 ⋅ (2 + 3n + 3n 2 )
with mixed terms
Polynomial third order
… 3n + 1
without mixed terms
Polynomial fourth order
… 1
2 ⋅ (2 + 3n + 5n2 )
with mixed terms
Polynomial fourth order
… 5n + 1
without mixed terms

Fig. 7-8. Two examples of chosen solution points for three variables (Weiland
2003)

The approximated response surface can then be updated after the next
probabilistic computation. This means that the response surface mainly
acts as a local approximation and does not give a good approximation over
the entire range of the original function. However, that is not required for
FORM/SORM computations:
284 7 Safety Assessment

g( x m( k ) ) (7-66)
x D( k=+m1) = x m( k ) + ( x Dk − x m( k ) )
( g( x m( k ) ) − g( x Dk ))
with xm as centre point, xD as design point based on a FORM computa-
tion using the response surface, and k as iteration counter. The iteration
scheme is shown in Fig. 7-9.

Fig. 7-9. Iterative improvement of the response surface (Klingmüller and Bourgund
1992)

The major advantage of this approximation is a simple application. The


schema can easily be extended to existing finite element programs or other
numerical tools. The computation is easily understandable and the number
of computations is low.
The major disadvantage is a limited capability to find the extreme value
of complicated functions. The number of iterations also depends on the
number of random variables. Therefore, in high-dimensional cases, the re-
sponse surface method may perhaps cause heavy computations. Further-
more, the approximation method only uses data points from one iteration
cycle. However, it may perhaps be useful to keep the data for further in-
vestigations. There exist external programs that can carry out response sur-
face computations afterwards by using all available data.
Since the limitations of the response surface method are known, in the
last few years many new methods have been developed (Roos and Bayer
2008, Ross and Bucher 2003). An adaptive response surface method has
been introduced by Most (2008).
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 285

7.2.6 Monte Carlo Simulation

7.2.6.1 Crude Monte Carlo Simulation

In contrast to the FORM and SORM methods, the Monte Carlo Simulation
is an integration procedure, not an extreme value computation. Therefore,
some assumptions required for the FORM/SORM are not relevant for the
Monte Carlo Simulation. Also, Monte Carlo Simulation is extremely easy
to program and to apply. However, if the probabilities of failure are ex-
tremely low and as required by codes, then Monte Carlo Simulation will
require extensive computation power.
The general idea of Monte Carlo Simulation is, as the name already in-
dicates, the application of pure random numbers into a computation flow.
In its simplest description, Monte Carlo Simulation is an extensive version
of trial and error. The only assumption for this technique is some quality
requirements for random numbers. Since computers cannot provide real
random numbers, they produce pseudo-random numbers based on purely
deterministic causal computations; the period of the numbers should be big
enough so that random numbers are not repeated in the Monte Carlo Simu-
lation. There are many programs available to provide high-quality random
numbers (NR 1992). The Monte Carlo Simulation is then
2 (7-68)
f2 − f
∫f dV ≈ V f ± V
N
,

where V represents the volume, V f stands for the mean value of the
function f over the sample size N, and the ±-term gives more or less an one
standard deviation error estimator. The further functions are
N N
1 1 (7-69)
f ≡
N
∑ f ( xi )
i =1
f2 ≡
N
∑f
i =1
2
( xi ) .

The major advantage of the Monte Carlo Simulation concerning the di-
mensions is the fact that the statistical error is independent from the num-
ber of dimensions. For Monte Carlo Simulation, it does not matter if there
is 1 or 50 random input variables, the statistical error will remain the same.
This is completely different for Simpson’s rule applied for integration,
where the required computation grows exponentially with the number of
dimensions.
286 7 Safety Assessment

However, the required sample size has a major influence on the error
size in Monte Carlo Simulation. The next equation is an example to evalu-
ate the required sample size nreq (Flederer 2001)
1 (1 − Pf ) (7-70)
nreq = ⋅
1 − Pε Pf ⋅ ε 2

with Pf as probability of failure, Pε as level of significance, and ε as sta-


tistical error. From the equation, it becomes understandable that with low
probabilities of failure and low statistical error, high sample sizes are re-
quired. Macke (2000) has given a good example, where the probability of
–6
failure was 10 and the required statistical error was less than 50%. The
6
required sample size was 4 × 10 . If the statistical error should be less than
8
10%, then more than 10 samples are required. Based on these properties,
Monte Carlo Simulation is a good method for high probabilities of failure
and for high dimensions. If lower probabilities were to be investigated
with Monte Carlo Simulation, the so-called variance reduction techniques
should be applied. This is mainly done after a preliminary FORM/SORM
computation.

7.2.6.2 Variance-reduced Monte Carlo Simulation


Since a great variety of variance reduction techniques exist, here only a
few will be mentioned. Probably the most applied technique is importance
sampling. Here, the original probability integral
Pf = ∫ ... ∫ f x (x)dx (7-71)
g<0

will be transferred using an indicator or a weighting function to


Pf = ∫ ... ∫ I ( x ) f x (x)dx . (7-72)
all

The weighting function is defined as


⎧ 1 g( x ) < 0 (7-73)
I ( x) = ⎨
⎩ 0 g( x ) ≥ 0
This permits a transformation of the random distributions using a chosen
distribution function hv(v):
f x (v ) (7-74)
Pf = ∫ ... ∫ I (v) hv (v)dv .
all
hv (v)
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 287

This function can be unbiasedly estimated with


1 mc
f x (v n ) (7-75)
Pˆ f =
mc
∑ I (v n )
n =1 hv (v n )
.

Furthermore, the variance can be computed as

1 ⎡1 m c⎛ f ( v ) ⎞
2
⎤ (7-76)
Var[ Pˆ f ] = ⎢ ∑ I (v n ) ⎜ x n
⎟ − Pˆ f ⎥ .
2

mc − 1 ⎢ mc n =1 ⎝ hv (v n ) ⎠ ⎥⎦

The major task in applying importance sampling is the search for a
proper distribution function hv(v). If some prior information is available,
for example by FORM/SORM computation, then the distribution function
hv(v) can be selected very efficiently, yielding to an impressive drop of
computational effort in the Monte Carlo Simulation. In general, impor-
tance sampling can be understood as a transformation of the random points
toward interesting regions in the sampling space (Maes et al. 1993, Song
1997, and Ibrahim 1991).
The concept can be even further extended by updating the distribution
function hv(v) after every sample step. This technique is called adaptive
sampling (Bucher 1988 and Mori and Ellingwood 1993).

7.2.6.3 Quasi-random numbers


Another interesting technique is the application of quasi-random numbers
instead of pseudo-random numbers. Quasi-random numbers are not ran-
dom at all. They are constructed to fill a multidimensional space in a most
efficient way. Also, they can be understood as a technique standing be-
tween the classical Simpson’s rule for integration and the crude Monte
Carlo Simulation. Since the numbers are deterministic, the computation
error becomes related to the dimensions.
However, the major advantage of the application of quasi-random num-
bers with Monte Carlo Simulation is the fact that they can be applied to
many finished programs. So, if Monte Carlo Simulation was chosen for a
certain project and it turns out after some sample computations that the
computation time is unacceptable, but the programming cannot be changed
anymore, then perhaps quasi-random numbers can be produced externally
and can then given to the program. This technique was applied in Flederer
(2001). More details about possible application can be found in Curbach
et al. (2002).
288 7 Safety Assessment

7.2.7 Combination of Safety Indexes

Whereas for Monte Carlo Simulation the number of limit state functions is
irrelevant for the FORM and SORM methods, perhaps different limit state
functions were considered separately and have to be merged into one sin-
gle probability of failure or safety index. This can be seen at an arch
bridge, where several different point of failure can be identified. The ques-
tion that follows is whether these points are correlated or not.
If the different limit state functions are uncorrelated, then system prob-
ability of failure can be computed as
n (7-77)
Pf = 1 − ∏ (1 − Pfj ) .
j =1

If the single probabilities of failure are rather small, the values can be
added instead of multiplying
n (7-78)
Pf ≈ ∑ Pfj .
j =1

The error term is then not higher than

1⎛ n ⎞
2 (7-79)
E ( Pf ) ≤ ⎜ ∑ Pfj ⎟ .
2 ⎝ j =1 ⎠
If the probabilities of failure are expressed as safety indexes, the formu-
las become
⎛ n
⎞ ⎛ n
⎞ (7-80)
β sys = −Φ −1 ⎜1 − ∏ Φ( β j ) ⎟ ≈ −Φ −1 ⎜ ∑ Φ( − β j ) ⎟ .
⎝ j =1 ⎠ ⎝ j =1 ⎠
If the noncorrelation of the limit states does not hold true, then the cor-
relations have to be considered and a multidimensional normal distribution
can be applied. The correlations are expressed as
ρ jk = α Tj α k = α j1α k1 + α j 2α k 2 + ... + α jmα km (7-81)

and
α Tj = (α j1 + α j 2 + ... + α jm ) . (7-82)

With α Tj are the weighting factors of the m random variables from the
j limit state function giving the safety index βj. For the correlation matrix
th

of the different limit state functions, one gets


7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 289

⎛ 1 ρ12 ρ1n ⎞ (7-83)


⎜ ⎟
ρ 1
R = ⎜ 21 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜⎜ ρ ρn2

1 ⎟⎠
⎝ n1
and a vector for the safety indexes
⎛ β1 ⎞ (7-84)
⎜ ⎟
β
β = ⎜ 2 ⎟.
⎜ ⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ βn ⎠
The system probability of failure is obtained by transformation in the
standard normal space and linearization of the limit state functions:
Pf = 1 − Ps (7-85)

⎛ n ⎞ (7-86)
= 1 − P ⎜ ∩ ( g j ( X ) ≥ 0) ⎟
⎝ j =1 ⎠

⎛ n ⎞ (7-87)
= 1 − P ⎜ ∩ (h j (Y ) ≥ 0) ⎟
⎝ j =1 ⎠

⎛ n ⎞ (7-88)
≈ 1 − P ⎜ ∩ (l j (Y ) ≥ 0) ⎟
⎝ j =1 ⎠

⎛ n ⎞ (7-89)
= 1 − P ⎜ ∩ (− Z *j ≤ β j ) ⎟
⎝ j =1 ⎠

= 1 − Φ n (β , R) , (7-90)

with Φ n ( β , R ) as standardized n-dimensional normal distribution.


βn β1
1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
Φn ( β , R ) = ∫ ∫ exp ⎜⎝ − 2 ψ R −1y ⎟ dy1 ,dy2 ,
T
1/ 2
dy n .
(2π ) n/2
R −∞ −∞ ⎠

(7-91)
290 7 Safety Assessment

Several different programs can be found for the evaluation of this function
(Schervish 1984, Genz 1992, Drezner 1992, and Yuan and Pandey 2006).
To simplify the computation, it is often assumed that the correlations are
equal between different limit state functions. The correlation matrix becomes

⎛1 ρ ρ⎞ (7-92)
⎜ ⎟
ρ 1
R=⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ρ ρ 1⎠
and the multidimensional standard normal distribution changes to
+∞ n ⎛ βi + ρ ⋅ x ⎞ (7-93)
Φ n ( β , R) = ∫ ϕ ( x)∏ Φ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ dx .
1 − ρ ⎟⎠
−∞ i =1 ⎝
Based on this idea of a mean correlation matrix, the coefficients of the
correlation matrix can be understood as products of single elements, like
⎛ 1 λ1 ⋅ λ2 λ1 ⋅ λn ⎞ (7-94)
⎜ ⎟
λ ⋅λ 1
R=⎜ 2 1 ⎟ , λ < 1, λ < 1, i, j = 1, 2, ..., n
⎜ ⎟ i i

⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ λn ⋅ λ1 λn ⋅ λ2 1 ⎠
and the multidimensional standard normal distribution again changes
+∞ n ⎛β +λ ⋅x⎞ (7-95)
Φ n (β , R) = ∫ ϕ ( x)∏ Φ ⎜ ⎟ dx .
i i
⎜ 1 − λ2 ⎟
−∞ i =1
⎝ i ⎠
Suggestions of lower bounds for the correlations values are given as
λ j ⋅ λk ≤ ρ jk j ≠ k (7-96)

and for the upper bound as


λ j ⋅ λk ≥ ρ jk j ≠ k (7-97)

and
− 1 ≤ λ j , λk ≤ 1 (7-98)
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 291

should remain valid. An optimal solution would be achieved when


λ j ⋅ λk = ρ jk . (7-99)

That will only be possible in some rare cases. However, if the ρjk has
approximately the same size and is positive, then the following recom-
mendation for lower bounds
λ j = max{ρ jk } j ≠ k (7-100)
j

and upper bounds


λ j = min{ρ jk } j ≠ k . (7-101)
j

can be given.
If the contribution of the limit state functions to the system probability
of failure can be roughly estimated, then the three limit state functions with
the highest probability of failure or the lowest safety index can be chosen,
and the following computation can be carried out:
λ1 ⋅ λ2 = ρ12 , λ2 ⋅ λ3 = ρ 23 , λ1 ⋅ λ3 = ρ13 (7-102)

ρ12 ⋅ ρ13 ρ21 ⋅ ρ23 ρ31 ⋅ ρ32 (7-103)


λ1 = , λ2 = , λ3 = .
ρ23 ρ13 ρ12
For the remaining values, an upper bound
⎧ ρ jk ⎫ (7-104)
λ j = min ⎨ ⎬ j = 4,5...
k ≤ j +1 λ
⎩ k ⎭
and a lower bound can be estimated
⎧ ρ jk ⎫ (7-105)
λ j = max ⎨ ⎬ j = 4,5... .
k ≤ j +1
⎩ λk ⎭
Unfortunately, the requirement
−1 ≤ λ j , λk ≤ 1 (7-106)

can sometimes cause numerical problems.


For series system, further bounds can be given. In serious systems,
the probability of failure increases by decreasing the correlation bet-
ween the different elements or limit state functions. This can be understood
292 7 Safety Assessment

as additionally random effects. The boundaries for a series system can be


written as
n n (7-107)
max Pfj ≤ Pf ≤ 1 − ∏ (1 − Pfj ) < ∑ Pfj
j
j =1 j =1

or, in terms of the safety index


⎛ n
⎞ ⎛ n ⎞ (7-108)
min β j ≥ β sys ≥ −Φ −1 ⎜ 1 − ∏ Φ( β j ) ⎟ > −Φ −1 ⎜ ∑ Φ(− β j ) ⎟ .
j
⎝ j =1 ⎠ ⎝ j =1 ⎠
Based on general additive theorems for probabilities, more precise
bounds can be given:
⎧1 (7-109)

Pf ≤ min ⎨ n n

⎪ ∑ P ( Fj ) − ∑ max P(Fj ∩ Fk )
k< j
⎩ j =1 j =2

⎧0 (7-110)
⎪n
Pf ≥ P( F1 ) + ∑ max ⎨ j −1

j =2 ⎪

P ( Fj ) − ∑
k =1
P (Fj ∩ Fk ) .

The average volume of two probabilities of failure can be computed as


P ( Fj ∩ Fk ) ≈ Φ 2 ( − β j , − β k ; ρ jk ) . (7-111)

Using this for the above given boundaries, one achieves


⎧1 (7-112)

Pf ≤ min ⎨ n n

⎪ ∑ Φ ( − β j ) − ∑ max Φ 2 (− β j , − β k ; ρ jk )
k< j
⎩ j =1 j =2

⎧0 (7-113)
⎪n
Pf ≥ Φ(− β1 ) + ∑ max ⎨ j −1

j =2 ⎪Φ(− β j ) − ∑ Φ 2 ( − β j , − β k ; ρ jk ) .
⎩ k =1

The two-dimensional standard normal distribution can be approximated


with
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 293

+∞ ⎛ x + λ ⋅w ⎞ ⎛ x + λ ⋅w ⎞ (7-114)
Φ 2 ( x2 ; x2 ; ρ ) = ∫ Φ ⎜ 1 1 ⎟ ⋅ Φ ⎜ 1 1 ⎟ ⋅ ϕ (w) dw
⎜ 1 − λ2 ⎟ ⎜ 1 − λ2 ⎟
−∞ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎝ 1 ⎠
using
λ1 = λ2 = ρ , ρ > 0 (7-115)

λ1 = − ρ , λ2 = − − ρ , ρ < 0 .
The introduced methods have been programmed into FORTRAN 77
routines and are available free of charge to the reader of this book. Please
simply contact the authors.
Arch bridges are usually considered to be a serious system: if one part
fails, the entire bridge will collapse. However, some parts of bridge behave
like parallel systems: one part will collapse and other parts will take more
loads. Further works about the estimation of probabilities of failure for
such types of systems can be found in Rackwitz and Hohenbichler (1981)
or Gollwitzer and Rackwitz (1990), as seen in Fig. 7-10.

Fig. 7-10. Relationship between system safety index and material properties
shown for a Daniel system

7.2.8 Limitation of the Presented Methods

The presented methods so far have described uncertainties of materials and


loads by random distribution functions. They have not considered any
294 7 Safety Assessment

correlations between the random variables that increase the numerical


work. For the interested reader, the Rosenblatt transformation or the
NATAF transformations are dealt with in Melchers (1999) or Liu and Der
Kiureghian (1986). Copulas are an additional technique to transform the
correlated random variables into noncorrelated variables.
Furthermore, these random distribution functions are usually kept con-
stant over different distances or volumes. In contrast, it is well-known that,
for example, material properties might not have a full correlation over a
certain distance or volume. This correlation change over distance may be
described by random fields (Vanmarcke 1983). In past years, random
fields are increasingly applied in structural safety investigations to estab-
lish stochastic finite elements (Der Kiureghian and Ke 1988, Ghanem and
Spanos 1991, and Pukl et al. 2006). The latest advances were shown by
Bayer and Ross (2008).
Furthermore, not all presented techniques perform well under all condi-
tions. Figures 7-11 and 7-12 give a good overview about the application
conditions of the probabilistic techniques.
It is not intended by the authors to give here a full summary about cur-
rent state of knowledge in the field of structural safety. A state-of-the-art
report for computational stochastic mechanics was given by Berman et al.
(1997), however, the latest developments should be considered. In con-
trast, the introduced methods can be easily programmed and applied to
arch bridge problems by the reader. For more advanced studies, some com-
mercial programs or programs from research institutes can be used.

Fig. 7-11. Performance of methods for stochastic structural analysis (Bucher et al.
2000)
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 295

Fig. 7-12. Applicability of certain stochastic techniques subject to the number of


random variables and the estimated probability of failure (Bayer 2008)

7.2.9 Commercial Programs

Although many universities have developed programs for the computation


of probabilities of failure, in many cases these programs lack a sufficient
manual, a graphical user interface, or simply an easy handling. Therefore,
in many cases, commercial probabilistic programs were developed.
Currently, the following programs are known to the authors, however
this list is subject to change: UNIPASS (Lin and Khalessi 2006), ProFES
(Wu et al. 2006), Proban (Tvedt 2006), PHIMECA (Lemaire and Pendola
2006), PERMAS-RA/STRUREL (Gollwitzer et al. 2006), NESSUS
(Thacker et al. 2006), COSSAN (Schueller and Pradlwarter 2006), CalRel/
FERUM/ OpenSees (Der Kiureghian et al. 2006), ANSYS PDS und
DesignXplorer (Reh et al. 2006), ATENA/SARA/FREET (Pukl et al.
2006), VaP (Petschacher 1994), OptiSlang (Schlegel and Will 2007),
RELSYS (Estes and Frangopol 1998), and the probabilistic toolbox
ProBox (Schweckendiek and Courage 2006). Many of these programs can
be downloaded free of charge for test runs (Table 7-3).
296 7 Safety Assessment

As mentioned above, parallel to the listed commercial programs, many


further stand alone programs were or are under development in companies
or at universities. Therefore, Epstein et al. (2008) suggested some general
requirements and structures for probabilistic computer programs. The ad-
aptation of these rules will ease the application of such programs and will
extend the user group.
Even without commercial programs, simple FORM or Monte Carlo
Simulations can be carried out with standard spreadsheet software. Includ-
ing an optimization tool like the solver in EXCEL, it is possible to com-
pute the safety index. An example of such an application can be found in
Low and Teh (2000).

Table 7-3. List of different probabilistic programs currently available


Program University Homepage
VAP ETH Zurich http://www.ibk.baum.ethz.ch/proserv/vap.html
CALREL University of http://www.ce.berkeley.edu
California,
Berkeley
FERUM University of http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~haukaas/FERUM/ferum.
California, html
Berkeley
NESSUS Southwest http://www.nessus.swri.org/
Research Institute,
San Antonia
PERMAS INTES GmbH, http://www.intes.de
Stuttgart
SLANG Bauhaus http://www.uni-weimar.de/Bauing/ism/Slang
University,
Weimar
ISPUD University http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/c8/c810
Innsbruck
COSSAN University http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/c8/c810
Innsbruck
PROBAN Det Norske http://www.dnv.com
Veritas Software
STRUREL RCP GmbH http://www.strurel.de
ANSYS ANSYS Inc. http://www.ansys.com
SARA University Bruno,
FREET Cervenka http://www.cervenka.cz
Consulting
RACKV University of
Natural Resources
and Applied Life
Sciences, Vienna
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 297

7.2.10 Goal Values of Safety Indexes

If a safety index or a probability of failure is used as a measure for safety


of the structure, they have to be compared to a certain proof or goal value.
Many references have published such goal probabilities of failure and
examples are shown in Tables 7-4 to 7-10. However, most of the publica-
tions show nearly the same values; for new structures, maximum probabil-
–6
ity of failure is in the range of 10 per year or a minimum safety index of
3.8 per year. For existing structures, usually less stringent requirements are
common. For example, a decrease of the safety index by 0.5 (Diamantidis
et al. 2007). Furthermore, the probability of failure or the safety index can
be adapted to more special conditions.

Table 7-4. Goal probability of failure per year according to the CEB (1976)
Average number of people endangered Economical consequences
low average high
–3
Low ( < 0.1) 10 10–4 10–5
–4 –5
Average 10 10 10–6
–5 –6
High ( > 10) 10 10 10–7

Table 7-5. Goal probability of failures in some Scandinavian countries (Spaethe


1992)
Safety Failure consequences Probability of failure for the limit
class state of ultimate load per year
Low Low personal injuries 1.0 ×·10–4
Insignificant economical consequences
Normal Some personal injuries 1.0 × 10–5
Considerable economical consequences
High Considerable personal injuries 1.0 × 10–6
Very high economical consequences

Table 7-6. Goal probability of failures in the former East Germany (Franz et al.
1991)
Reliability class Consequences Probability of failure
I Very high danger to the public 1.0 × 10–7
Very high economical consequences
Disaster
II High danger to the public 1.0 × 10–6
High economical consequences
High cultural losses
III Danger to some persons 1.0 × 10–5
Economical consequences
298 7 Safety Assessment

Reliability class Consequences Probability of failure


IV Low danger to persons 1.0 × 10–4
Low economical consequences
V Very low danger to persons 7.0 × 10–4
Very low economical consequences

Table 7-7. Goal probability of failures according to the GruSiBau (1981)


Safety Possible consequences of failure Type of limit state
class
Limit state of ultimate Limit state of Ultimate Serviceability
load bearing serviceability load
1 No danger to humans Low economical 1.34 × 10–5 6.21 × 10–3
and no economical consequences and
consequences low usage limitation
2 Some danger to humans Considerable 1.30 × 10–6 1.35 × 10–3
and considerable economical
economical consequences and
consequences strong limitation of
further usage
3 High importance of the High economical 1.00 × 10–7 2.33 × 10–4
structure to the public consequences and
high restriction to
future usage

Table 7-8. Goal probability of failure according to the DIN 1055-100 (1999) and
the Eurocode 1 (1994)
Limit state Probability of failure
Lifetime Per year
–5
Ultimate load 7.24 × 10 1.30 × 10–6
–2
Serviceability 6.68 × 10 1.35 × 10–5

Table 7-9. Goal safety indices according to ISO/CD 13822 (1999)


Limit state Safety index
Serviceability
Reversible 0.0
Irreversible 1.5
Fatigue
Testable 2.3
Not testable 3.1
Ultimate load
Very low consequences 2.3
Low consequences 3.1
Common consequences 3.8
High consequences 4.3
7.2 Probabilistic Safety Concept 299

Table 7-10. Goal safety indices according to the JCSS Modelcode (2004)
Costs for safety Low failure Average failure High failure
measures consequences consequences consequences
Low 3.1 3.3 3.7
Average 3.7 4.2 4.4
High 4.2 4.4 4.7

The Eurocode also permits an adaptation of the safety index to some


consequence classes in terms of failure consequence classes (CC) as
shown in Table 7-11. Such consequence classes can then be related to
some reliability classes (RC) listed in Tables 7-12 and 7-13.

Table 7-11. Graduation of failure CCs according to the Eurocode 1 (1994)


Failure CCs Consequences Examples
CC 3 High consequences to Stands, public buildings, for
humans, the economy, example concert halls
social systems and the
environment
CC 2 Average consequences to Dwelling and office buildings,
humans, the economy, public buildings such as offices
social systems and the
environment
CC 1 Low consequences to Agricultural structures or
humans, the economy, structures without regular
social systems, and the persons’ residence, for example
environment barns, conservatories

Table 7-12. Graduation of RCs according to the Eurocode 1 (1994)


RC Safety index per year Safety index for 50 years
RC 3 5.2 4.3
RC 2 4.7 3.8
RC 1 4.2 3.3
300 7 Safety Assessment

Table 7-13. Adaptation factor for the partial safety index subject to the RC (Euro-
code 1 1994)
Adaptation for the par- RC
tial safety factors RC1 RC2 RC3
KFI 0.9 1.0 1.1

The Eurocode furthermore can consider different types of production


control of the building material in terms of changes of partial safety factors
of the material. Still, this is for new structures only. Therefore, some other
recommendations focus on existing structures. For example, in Tables 7-14
and 7-15, some adaptation factors are given. Furthermore, Strauss and
Bergmeister (2005) have also introduced some factors.

Table 7-14. Adaptation of the safety index according to the CAN/CSA-S6-88


Canadian Limit States Design Standard (taken from Casas et al. 2001 and COST
345 2004)
β = 3.5 − ( Δ E + Δ S + Δ I + Δ PC ) ≥ 2.0 value
Correction factor for element failure ΔE
Abrupt failure without warning 0.0
Abrupt loss of bearing capacity without warning with remaining capacity 0.25
Grateful failure with warning 0.50
Correction factor for system failure ΔS
Failure of one single element causes system failure 0.00
Failure of one single element does not cause system failure 0.25
Failure of one single element causes local failure only 0.50
Correction factor for monitoring ΔI
Element is not controllable –0.25
Element is controlled regularly 0.00
Critical elements are controlled more frequently 0.25
Correction factor for live load Δ PC
All types of traffic without special permission 0.00
All types of traffic with special permission 0.60

Table 7-15. Adaptation of the safety index according to Schueremans and Van
Gemert (2001)
β = βT − ( Δ S + Δ R + Δ P + Δ I ) ≥ 2.0 value
Adjustment for system behaviour ΔS
Failure leads to collapse, likely to impact occupants 0.00
Failure is unlikely to lead to collapse, or unlikely to impact occupants 0.25
Failure is local only, very unlikely to impact on occupants 0.50
Adjustment for risk category ΔR
High number of occupants (n) exposed to failure (n = 100–1,000) 0.00
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 301

β = βT − ( Δ S + Δ R + Δ P + Δ I ) ≥ 2.0 value
Normal occupancy exposed to failure (n = 10–99) 0.25
Low occupancy exposed to failure (n = 0–9) 0.50
Adjustment for past performance: ΔP
No record of satisfactory past performance 0.00
Satisfactory past performance or dead load measured 0.25
Adjustment for inspection: ΔI
Component not inspect able –0.25
Component regularly inspected 0.00
Critical component inspected by expert 0.25

This adapted safety index can then be used to provide alternative safety
measures in the semiprobabilistic safety concept.
Further background information about the development of goal prob-
abilities of failure or safety indexes can be found in Proske (2008b) dis-
cussing different risk parameters and the current developments.

7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept

7.3.1 Introduction

The probabilistic safety concept for structures has introduced the measure
of probability of failure as a measure of reliability and safety. Neverthe-
less, under everyday conditions, this measure is not practical and instead,
simpler types of proof of safety have to be used for structures. Therefore,
the probabilistic safety concept has to be transformed into a semiprob-
abilistic safety concept, which means nothing else than developing substi-
tutes for the probability of failure proof, which are easier to handle. Such
substitutes are the safety factors, characteristic values, and the design val-
ues. They are developed on some basic simplification.
One major advantage for these elements is the long tradition of the ap-
plication of safety factors. It has been estimated that the first application of
a global safety factor goes back up to 300 B.C. by Philo from Byzantium
(Shigley and Mischke 2001). He introduced the global safety factor in
terms of
resistance (1-116)
γ= .
load
302 7 Safety Assessment

Empirical geometrical rules remained valid over nearly the next two
millenniums. Only in the last few centuries have the applications of safety
factors become widespread. Over time, several different values were de-
veloped for different materials. In most cases, the values dropped signifi-
cantly during the last century. As an example, in 1880 for brick masonry
the safety factor of 10 was required, whereas only 10 years later the factor
was chosen between 7 and 8. In the 20th century, the values ranged from
factor 5 and 4, and now for the recalculation of historical structures with that
material, factor 3 is chosen (Busch and Zumpe 1995, Schleicher 1949,
Wenzel 1997, Mann 1987, and Tonon and Tonon 2006). This decline of
safety factors could also be observed for other materials such as steel. The
development of new materials especially led to more concerns about the safe
application of those materials. The different developments for safety factors
for materials led to the first efforts in the beginning of the 20th century to
develop material-independent factors, as shown in Tables 7-16 and 7-17.

Table 7-16. Global safety factor according to Visodic (1948)


Safety factor Knowledge of load Knowledge of Knowledge of
material environment
1.2–1.5 Excellent Excellent Controlled
1.5–2.0 Good Good Constant
2.0–2.5 Good Good Normal
2.5–3.0 Average Average Normal
3.0–4.0 Average Average Normal
3.0–4.0 Low Low Unknown

Table 7-17. Global safety factor according to Norton (1996)


Safety Knowledge of load Knowledge of Knowledge of
factor material environment
1.3 Extremely well-known Extremely Likewise tests
well-known
2 Good approximation Good approximation Controllable
environment
3 Normal approximation Normal Moderate
approximation
5 Guessing Guessing Extreme

As the tables show, a further decline of global safety factors seems to be


limited; otherwise, the major requirement safety of structures might not be
fulfilled anymore. Therefore, more advanced changes might be considered
to meet the demanding requirements of economic and safe structures. Such
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 303

a development would be special safety factors for the different columns in


the table 7-16; for example, a safety factor for the load and a safety factor
for the material. This is indeed the idea of the partial safety factor concept.
It does not necessarily yield to lower safety factors, but it yields to a more
homogenous level of safety.
The development of partial safety factors is strongly related to the de-
velopment of the probabilistic safety concept. However, the practical appli-
cation of partial safety factors took additional decades. First applications
can be found in steel design, whereas a first example in the field of struc-
tural concrete could be ETV concrete—a concrete code in East Germany
(ETV stands for Unified technical codes). ETV concrete was developed
during the seventies of the 20th century and introduced in the beginning of
the eighties. A comparison between ETV and the up-to-date German code
DIN 1045-1 can be found in Wiese et al. (2005).

7.3.2 Partial Safety Factors

7.3.2.1 Introduction
The change from the global safety factor concept to the partial safety fac-
tor concept can be easily seen in the following equations. In general, the
comparison of the resistance of a structure and the load or event remains
E d ≤ Rd . (7-117)

But in contrast to the global safety factor format, where the safety factor
can be separated like
Ed ≤ Rd / γ Global , (7-118)

the safety factors accompany the parameters required for design. Then,
the design load Ed is evaluated according to
Ed = ∑ γ G , j ⋅ Gk , j + γ Q ,1 ⋅ Qk ,1 + ∑ γ Q ,i ⋅ψ 0,i ⋅ Qk ,i (7-119)
j ≥1 i >1

and the design resistance Rd is based on


⎛ f f yk f f p 0,1k f pk ⎞ (7-120)
Rd = R ⎜ α ⋅ ck ; ; tk ,cal ; ; ⎟.
⎝ γc γs γs γs γs ⎠
A list of material partial safety factors is given in Table 7-18.
304 7 Safety Assessment

Table 7-18. Material partial safety factors


Accidental
Code or Limit state of
Material load
reference ultimate load
conditions
Concrete (up to C 50/60) DIN 1045-1 1.50 1.30
1.5/ 1.3/
Concrete higher than C 50/60 DIN 1045-1
(1.1-fck/500) (1.1-fck/500)
Non-reinforced concrete DIN 1045-1 1.80 1.55
Non-reinforced concrete DAfSt (1996) 1.25
Pre-cast concrete DIN 1045-1 1.35
Collateral evasion DIN 1045-1 2.00 –
Reinforcement steel DIN 1045-1 1.15 1.00
Pre-stressing steel DIN 1045-1 1.15 1.00
Steel yield strength EN 4 1.10 1.00
Steel tensile strength EN 4 1.25 1.00
Steel tensile strength EN 4 1.00 1.00
Wood EN 5 1.30 1.00
Masonry (Category A) EN 6 1.7 (I)/2.0 (II) 1.20
Masonry (Category B) EN 6 2.2 (I)/2.5 (II) 1.50
Masonry (Category C) EN 6 2.7 (I)/3.0 (II) 1.80
Masonry – steel EN 6 1.50/2.20
Masonry DIN 1053-100 1.50–1.875 1.30–1.625
Wall anchorage (C. A-C) Mann (1999) 2.50 1.20
Floatglas/Gussglas BÜV (2001) 1.80 1.40
ESV-Glas BÜV (2001) 1.50 1.30
Siliconglas BÜV (2001) 5.00 2.50
Carbon fibre Onken et al. 1.20
Carbon fibre (2002) and 1.301
Carbon fibre cable Bergmeister 1.201
Carbon fibre glue (2003) 1.501
Cladding DIN 18 516 2.00
Aluminum yield strength EN 9 1.10
Aluminum tensile strength EN 9 1.25
Bamboo as building material Bamboo (2005) 1.50
Textile reinforced concrete Own works 1.802
Concrete – multiaxial loading Own works 1.35–1.70
Granodiorit tensile strength Own works 1.50–1.70
Historical masonry arch bridges UIC-Codex 2.00 3
Historical non-reinforced arch Bothe et al. 1.803
bridges (2004)
1
Consider construction conditions (Bergmeister 2003).
2
Recent researches indicate lower values.
3
A partial safety factor for a system.
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 305

Unfortunately, the definition of the safety format for the resistance de-
pends on the way of computing the forces in the structure. Eibl (1992) and
Eibl and Schmidt-Hurtienne (1995) have pointed out the limitation of the
partial safety factor concept in nonlinear force calculations. If the forces
are computed in a nonlinear procedure, then an alternative definition has to
be chosen, such as
1 (7-121)
Rd = R( fcR ; f yR ; ftR ; f p 0,1 R ; f pR ) .
γR
Here, current work is being carried out. The reader should consult re-
cent publications, such as Cervenka (2007), Allaix et al. (2007), Holicky
(2007), and especially Pfeiffer and Quast (2003).

7.3.2.2 Design of partial safety factors


Several methods exist to develop partial safety factors for a certain mate-
rial or a certain type of structure. But in general, all procedures rely on a
statistical description of the material inherent uncertainty. Additionally,
historical partial safety factors remain valid if they have proven to provide
safe structures.
First, a historical procedure is introduced that permits the development of
partial safety factors for concrete only on the coefficient of variation, an
assumption about the type of probability distribution function, and the
class of the structure (Murzewski 1974) (Tables 7-19 and 7-20). Usually
the coefficient of variations for concrete depending on the production con-
ditions lies around 10% (Spaethe 1992, Östlund 1991).

Table 7-19. Partial safety factor for a lognormal distributed strength


Class of structure Coefficient of variation
Class of structure 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Dam 1.26 1.58 1.95 2.43
Bridge, theatre, cultural buildings 1.23 1.49 1.82 2.16
Residential buildings, office buildings 1.20 1.40 1.65 1.91
Lager, bunker, frames 1.15 1.31 1.46 1.62
Secondary buildings 1.10 1.17 1.22 1.25

Table 7-20. Partial safety factor for a normal distributed strength


Coefficient of variation
Class of structure 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Dam 1.24–1.30 1.46–1.85
Bridge, theatre, cultural buildings 1.21–1.26 1.41–1.67 1.60–2.47
Residential or office buildings 1.18–1.22 1.35–1.53 1.50–2.00 1.65–2.86
306 7 Safety Assessment

Coefficient of variation
Lager, bunker, frames 1.15–1.16 1.27–1.37 1.38–1.61 1.49–1.92
Secondary buildings 1.10–1.11 1.17–1.19 1.21–1.25 1.23–1.28

The Eurocode (EN) is heavily based on works and suggestions by the


Joint Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS). In the background document
of the Eurocode provided by the JCSS (2004), an example for the devel-
opment of a partial safety factor is presented. The general description for
such a factor is
R = Θ⋅a⋅ x (7-122)
with Θ as uncertainty factor for the calculation model, a as geometrical
factor, and x as material strength. The resistance design value is then
Θ k ⋅ ak ⋅ x k (7-123)
Rd = .
γM
The three parameters might then be considered as independent random
variables with a lognormal distribution. Please note that this is not true for
many materials. The material partial safety factor can then be evaluated
according to
γ M = exp(α R ⋅ β ⋅ (Vx + 0.4 ⋅ Va + 0, 4 ⋅ VΘ ) − 1.64 ⋅ Vx ) . (7-124)

Additionally, simplified rules exist for the development of design val-


ues, including material partial safety factors based on testing of materials.
Such procedures have been intensively discussed by Reid (1999) and have
been applied for masonry (Curbach and Proske 2004). The procedures in-
clude some main assumptions; for example, the probability distribution
function of the load and the resistance. Examples are the Australian Stan-
dard Procedure for Statistical Proof Loading, Australian Standard Proce-
dure for Probabilistic Load Testing, or the Standard for Probabilistic Load
tests. Most of the procedures consider the variance of the material strength,
the variance of the load, some condition factors, the number of tests or a
correction factor, and the required safety index.
Val and Stewart (2002) describe a procedure for the evaluation of partial
safety factors for mainly the resistance of existing structures. The safety
factor is split into two parts, the partial safety factor for the material
strength and a factor for the consideration of additional uncertainties, fk,est is
the estimated characteristic material strength. The design value for the
strength is therefore
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 307

f k ,est (7-125)
fd = .
γ m ⋅ γη
Tables 7-21 and 7-22 show some examples taken from the publication
by Val and Stewart (2002). In Table 7-21, no a priori information was
available, whereas in Table 7-22, a priori information could be used. It be-
comes clear that additional information is for existing structures of major
importance for keeping safe and efficient structures. As already seen in the
JCSS (2004) example, the consideration of modelling uncertainty, in
which ever way, is a major part of many expansions of the traditional ways
for the developing partial safety factors. Here it becomes visible that the
clear rule for the application of statistics might sometimes be a drawback
for a realistic estimation of the safety of a structure.

Table 7-21. Example of material partial safety factors without a priori and with
six tested samples (Val and Stewart 2002)
Coefficient of variation of γm Coefficient of variation for the calibration factor
the samples 0.05 0.10 0.15
0.04 1.1 1.07 1.19 1.27
0.08 1.4 1.05 1.17 1.24
0.12 1.6 1.04 1.15 1.21
0.16 1.9 1.03 1.10 1.19
0.20 2.2 1.02 1.07 1.15

Table 7-22. Example of material partial safety factors with a priori and with six
tested samples (Val and Stewart 2002)
A priori coefficient of variation γm
0.05 1.36
0.10 1.25
0.15 1.21

Melchers and Faber (2001) introduce a damage function, which is in-


cluded in the following material safety factor:
γ M = γ M 0 ⋅ ϕP ⋅ ϕD ⋅ ϕM . (7-126)

The factors consider deterioration processes, protection against deterio-


ration, and intensity of inspection.
Schneider (1999) has also investigated the development of partial safety
factors. Partial safety factors for existing reinforced concrete structures
308 7 Safety Assessment

have recently been discussed by Fischer and Schnell (2008) and Braml and
Keuser (2008).
Besides the simplified techniques, the partial safety factor can also be
computed using the results from full probabilistic computations (FORM).
Then, the so-called weighting factors αR of the random variables are used.
The partial safety factor for material strength γm is computed as
Rc (7-127)
γm = .
Rd
The safety factor can be computed when design resistance Rd and char-
acteristic resistance Rc are known. Since
Rd = μE − α R ⋅ β ⋅ σ R (7-128)

and for a normal distribution with known mean value and standard de-
viation, the characteristic value is given as
Rc = μE − 1.645 ⋅ σ R , (7-129)
hence the partial safety factor for the material strength can be computed.
As an example, Fig. 7-13 shows the distribution of the weighting factor
quadrates for historical arch bridges, either for road or for railway traffic
based on FORM computations. This is a common type of diagram since
the quadrates of the weighting factors have to sum up to one. The figure
clearly shows why in railway codes the partial safety factor for the traffic
load is often lower; for example, 1.3 compared to road traffic bridges with
1.5. Here it can be seen that the weighting factor is significantly lower for
railway traffic than for road traffic.
Table 7-23 shows the computation of partial safety factors for live and
dead load subjected to an adaptable goal safety index for arch bridges.
Table 7-24 lists system partial safety factors for stone arch bridges subject
to different masonry types. The investigation is based on own probabilistic
computations.
In general, the issue of partial safety factors for historical stone arch
bridges is still under discussion since they show a highly nonlinear behav-
iour and such structures can only be understood as a system and not on the
cross-section layer.
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 309

Fig. 7-13. Distribution of the square of the weighting factors for an arch bridge us-
ing a linear-elastic model for railway traffic (left) and road traffic (right)

Table 7-23. Partial safety factor for dead and live load considering the adaptation
of the safety index according to Schueremans and Van Gemert (2001)
Δ S + Δ R + Δ P + Δ I ≤ 1.5 Partial safety factor for Factor of combination
Dead load Live load
–0.25 1.42 1.56 0.69
0.00 1.35 1.50 0.70
0.25 1.28 1.45 0.71
0.50 1.22 1.39 0.72
0.75 1.16 1.34 0.73
1.00 1.10 1.29 0.74
1.25 1.05 1.25 0.75
1.50 1.00 1.20 0.76

Table 7-24. Own suggestions for partial safety factors for historical masonry arch
bridges subject to different masonry types in the arch
Masonry types

System partial safety factor


γ M = 2.1 γ M = 2.0 γ M = 1.9 γ M = 1.8
310 7 Safety Assessment

7.3.3 Characteristic Values

Characteristic values are probability fixed defined values of a probability


distribution. They relate the probability distribution property—for exam-
ple, strength—to a certain probability. A characteristic strength value fk of
structural materials of 5% of the overall population is very common. That
means that only 5% of the overall population will experience a lesser
strength, and 95% of the population will show a higher strength than this
5% fractile material strength. The terms percentile and quantile can often
also be found in literature instead of fractile. The chosen value of 5% is ar-
bitrary, but the general idea about characteristic values are the proofs in the
state of serviceability carried out without partial safety factor (one). Since
characteristic values and partial safety factors interact, the characteristic
value simply has to be chosen to provide the partial safety factor of one for
the limit state of serviceability. Therefore, the assumption of the 5% frac-
tile value can be found as a general requirement, for example, in the Euro-
code 1 (1994) or in the German DIN 1055-100, Sect. 6.4 (1999). As an ex-
ample, some material-related codes are listed here to show the wide
application of the 5% fractile value assumption:
• Reinforcement steel according to DIN 488 (90% confidence interval)
• Concrete compression strength according to DIN 1045, DIN 1048
• Masonry after testing according to DIN 1053 (75% confidence interval)
(Schubert 1995)
• Outer wall panelling according to DIN 18516 (75% confidence interval)
• Masonry according to DIN 18152 (1987) with 90% confidence interval
• Reinforcement steel according to ENV 100080 (90% confidence inter-
val)
• Wooden structures according to DIN V ENV 1995 (84,1%-confidence
interval, coefficient of variation greater or equal 0.1, more than 30 sam-
ples)
• Masonry-aerated concrete (95%-confidence interval)
• Artificial brick stones (Schubert 1995)
• Natural stones (90% confidence interval) (Schubert 1995)
To compute a 5% fractile value of a certain property, statistical informa-
tion is required. Using such statistical information, a probability distribu-
tion function can be estimated. There exists a wide variety of such prob-
ability functions as shown in Table 7-25. Many distribution functions can
be related to each other (Fig. 7-14). Other distribution functions describe
certain distribution families or certain conditions; for example, Piersons
differental equation and the Fleishmann system. An overview of distribution
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 311

families can be found in Plate (1993), Bobee and Ashkar (1991), and
Fischer (1999). Besides that for extreme value distributions, the work by
Castillo et al. (2008) is mentioned. For practical reasons, however, only a
limited number of distributions is considered for construction material: the
normal distribution, the lognormal distribution, and the Weibull distribu-
tion (Fischer 1999, Eurocode 1 1994, and GruSiBau 1981). The normal dis-
tribution has found wide application and can be easily explained by the
central limit state theorem. This theorem states that a sum of certain ran-
dom variables will yield to a normal distributed random variable if certain
conditions are fulfilled (Van der Werden 1957). Such conditions are, for
example, that no single random variable dominates the results. And indeed,
many material properties can be seen as the sum of certain other proper-
ties—for example, the strength of a natural stone can be seen as sum of the
strength of the single elements of the stone. Therefore, many publications
assume a normal distribution for the concrete compression strength (Rüsch
et al. 1969). A disadvantage of the normal distribution is possible negative
values. Therefore, instead of the normal distribution, the lognormal distri-
bution is often used if the average value of a material property is low and
experiences a high standard deviation, such as the tensile strength of con-
crete or masonry. The lognormal distribution does not feature negative
values and therefore no negative tensile strengths are then possible. The
lognormal distribution can also be related to the central limit state theorem,
if the data are logarithmic. However, this implies the multiplication of the
single input random variables—in other terms, the logarithmic distribution
fulfils the central limit state theorem for the case of multiplication. A fur-
ther often-used distribution for construction material properties is the
Weibull distribution (Weibull 1951). This distribution belongs to the group
of extreme value distributions and describes a chain interaction of single
elements. If the weakest part of the chain fails, then the entire chain fails,
which indeed fulfil’s the requirements of an extreme value distribution.
The properties of brittle materials, such as glass, can be described with this
distribution (Button et al. 1993, Güsgen et al. 1998). Of course, many ma-
terials do not comply with the chain rule for a serial system but show
rather a mixed parallel-serial system. Further considerations are then
needed. Some theoretical works dealing with this issue have been taken
out by Rackwitz and Hohenbichler (1981), Gollwitzer and Rackwitz
(1990), and Kadarpa et al. (1996) for brittle materials; Chudoba et al.
(2006) and Chudoba and Vorechovsky (2006) for glass yarns.
312 7 Safety Assessment

Table 7-25. Certain probability functions


Name of distribution Name of distribution
1 χ-Distribution 29 Laplace distribution
2 General Pareto distribution 30 Logarithmic Pearson typ-3
distribution
3 Arcsin distribution 31 Logarithmic–logistic distribution
4 Beta distribution 32 Logistic distribution
5 Binomial distribution 33 Lognormal distribution
6 Birnbaum–Saunders distribution 34 Lorenz distribution
7 Breit–Wigner distribution 35 Maxwell distribution
8 Cauchy distribution 36 Neville distribution
9 Erlang distribution 37 Pareto distribution
10 Exponential distribution 38 Pearson, typ-3, gamma distribution
11 Extreme value distribution typ I max 39 Pearson, typ-3 distribution
12 Extreme value distribution typ I min 40 Poisson distribution
13 Extreme value distribution typ II max 41 Polya distribution
14 Extreme value distribution typ II min 42 Potential distribution
15 Extreme value distribution typ III max 43 Power normal distribution
16 Extreme value distribution typ III min 44 Rayleigh distribution
17 Fisher distribution 45 Uniform distribution
18 Fréchet distribution 46 Reverse Weibull distribution
19 F distribution 47 Rossi distribution
20 Gamma distribution (G-distribution) 48 Simpson or triangle distribution
21 Gauss order normal distribution 49 Sinus distribution
22 General extreme value distribution 50 Snedecor distribution
23 General Pareto distribution 51 Student-t-distribution
24 Geometric distribution 52 Tukey Lambda distribution
25 Gumbel distribution 53 Wakeby distribution
26 Hypergeometric distribution 54 Weibull distribution
27 Krickij–Menkel distribution 55 Wishart distribution
28 Landau distribution 56 Z-Distribution
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 313

Fig. 7-14. Distribution families according to Fischer (1999)


However, theoretical considerations often do not prove the type of prob-
ability distribution. Therefore, usually the statistical data are investigated,
according to DIN 53804 (1981). The most robust and fast converting pa-
rameters of the random data are general tendency estimators such as the ar-
ithmetical mean, harmonically mean, geometrical mean, generalized mean,
quadratic mean and median (50% fractile), and mode (most probable
value). However, more interesting from a statistical point of view, are de-
viation measures or uncertainty measures such as variance, standard devia-
tion (same unit as mean value), coefficient of variation, span, modified in-
terquartile range, and mean deviation. Besides such measures, the
skewness and the kurtosis are also of interest (Fig. 7-15).

Fig. 7-15. Meaning of the statistical parameter arithmetic mean (Xm), standard de-
viation (σ), skewness (S), and kurtosis (K)
314 7 Safety Assessment

For historical masonry, one should keep in mind that such statistical pa-
rameters may be insufficient due to corrupted data (Fig. 7-16). Statistical
data from historical masonry with natural stone may feature outliers, cen-
sored data, and multimodal data. Outliers are samples that do not belong to
the population. However, since we do not know the population, it is diffi-
cult to identify outliers. Here, Dixons test, Barnett–Lewis test, Chauvenets
criteria, Grupps test, the David-Hartley-Pearson test and other criteria may
be used for outlier identification (McBean and Rovers 1998, Fischer 1999,
and Bartsch 1991). Censored data describe a condition in which access to the
original population data is filtered by a process. For example, investigating
the strength of historical mortar may yield to censored data since the drill-
ing process using high-pressure cooling water may destroy mortar inside
the masonry. Furthermore, sawing the test specimen may further destroy
material. Therefore, the compression test results of the mortar may indicate
high average compression strength, however the tests do not consider the
failure of all weak material in the preparation process. Therefore, the data
are censored and have to be corrected. Then, for example, Cohens and
Aitchison’s method can be applied for data correction (McBean and Rov-
ers 1998). Finally, it may be the case that the test results do not come from
one population. For example, different stone types may be used for maso-
nry or the natural stone material may come from different stone quarries.
Then the compression strength can show multimodal behaviour. Using op-
timization methods, it is possible to disintegrate different distributions
from such multimodal data (Proske 2003).

Fig. 7-16. Examples of corrupted data

After the evaluation of the single parameters, the probability distribution


function usually has to be chosen. Several statistical techniques exist to in-
vestigate statistical data and recommend a distribution type:
• Relating the coefficient of variance and the type of distribution
• Relating skewness and kurtosis and the type of distribution (Fig. 7-17)
• The minimum sum square error based on histograms
• The χ test and nω test
2 2

• The Kolmogoroff-Smirnoff test


• The Shapiro-Wilk or Shapiro-Francia test
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 315

• Probability plots
• Quantile-correlation values
Such statistical tests are often called goodness-of-fit tests. However, as
described, statistical testing is only one part of the investigation. The un-
derstanding of the material extraction, the testing techniques, and the ma-
terial itself is compelling to interpret the results of material testing and sta-
tistical investigations.

Fig. 7-17. Relation between skewness and kurtosis and the type of distribution
(Plate 1993) D. = distribution

Besides the behaviour of single random variables, correlation between the


random variables is often of great interest in identifying deterministic formu-
las. However, the identification of different correlation coefficients is rather
laborious due to the required high sample sizes. Figure 7-18 shows that
measuring a correlation coefficient of 0.5 for ten samples shows a value for
the population between –0.5 and 0.8. Furthermore, Pearson’s coefficient of
correlation may not be adequate, other correlation coefficients such as from
Spearman, Kendall, and Hoeffding may be helpful. Additionally, nonlinear
regression using the Levenberg-Marquardt method can be considered.
Besides such limitations, the next sections will discuss the computation of
characteristic 5% fractile values for certain probability distribution functions.
316 7 Safety Assessment

Fig. 7-18. Ninty-five percent confidence interval for coefficient of correlations


(Steel and Torrie 1991)

7.3.3.1 Normal distribution


The 5% fractile value fk of a normal distributed material strength can be
computed as (Storm 1988)
fk = fm − k ⋅ σ , (7-130)

where fm is the mean value and σ is the standard deviation. If the mean
value and the standard deviation are known, then the k-factor correspond-
ing to the 5% fractile value amounts to 1.645. However, usually only some
suggestions for the mean value and the standard deviation are known due
to a limited number of samples. Although the mean value converges very
fast with a low number of samples, the problem remains for the evaluation
of the standard deviation. The uncertainty in the empirical statistical pa-
rameters is usually considered in the choice of the k-factor.
Assuming, for example, a normal distributed property with 15 samples
and a confidence interval of 95%, the k-factor becomes 1.76 based on a
student-t distribution (Table 7-26). For very high sample numbers, the k-
value converges to 1.645 again.
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 317

Table 7-26. k-factors based on a student’s t-distribution (degrees of freedom =


sample number – 1)

Degree of Fractile value Degrees of Fractile value


freedom 5% 2.5% freedom 5% 2.5%
1 6.314 12.706 20 1.725 2.086
2 2.920 4.303 21 1.721 2.080
3 2.353 3.182 22 1.717 2.074
4 2.132 2.776 23 1.714 2.069
5 2.015 2.571 24 1.711 2.064
6 1.943 2.447 25 1.708 2.060
7 1.895 2.365 26 1.706 2.056
8 1.860 2.306 27 1.703 2.052
9 1.833 2.262 28 1.701 2.048
10 1.812 2.228 29 1.699 2.045
11 1.796 2.201 30 1.697 2.042
12 1.782 2.179 40 1.684 2.021
13 1.771 2.160 60 1.671 2.000
14 1.761 2.145 80 1.664 1.990
15 1.753 2.131 100 1.660 1.984
16 1.746 2.120 200 1.653 1.972
17 1.740 2.110 500 1.648 1.965
18 1.734 2.101 1000 1.646 1.962

The Eurocode 1 suggests slightly different k-factors. For example, ac-


cording to the Eurocode 1, 15 samples would yield a k-factor of 1.84.
A simple example should illustrate the application of a normal distribu-
tion. About 500 compression test results of Posta sandstone are available
for an investigation. The mean value of the compression strength is 58.05
MPa and the standard deviation is given with 10.32 MPa. Assuming a
normal distribution for 500 samples, the k-value becomes 1.648. The char-
acteristic compression strength then is computed as
f st ,k = 58.05 MPa − 1.648 ⋅ 10.32 MPa = 41.04 MPa . (7-131)

This value is compared with other references discussing the compres-


sion strength of Posta sandstone. Since the sample size is unknown, the k-
value is kept constant with 1.645.

Grunert (1982) f st ,k = f m − 1.645 ⋅ σ = 45.6 − 1.645 ⋅11.6 = 26.52 MPa


Grunert et al. (1998) f st ,k = f m − 1.645 ⋅ σ = 31.6 − 1.645 ⋅ 6.8 = 20.41 MPa
Peschel (1984) f st ,k = f m − 1.645 ⋅ σ = 41.6 − 1.645 ⋅ 11.6 = 22.52 MPa
318 7 Safety Assessment

7.3.3.2 Lognormal distribution


As mentioned above, the lognormal distribution can be reasoned based on
a product formulation of the central limit theorem. The computation of the
5% fractile value is analogous to the normal distribution, except that the
data have to be transformed by the logarithm:
L ' = y − k ⋅ s* = ln( L ) (7-132)

n
yi (7-133)
y =∑ with yi = ln( xi )
i =1 n

n (7-134)
∑(y − y)
2
i
s* = i =1
.
n −1
The following example should show the application. Four compression
strength tests from natural stone masonry have been carried out (Table 7-27).

Table 7-27. Test data


Sample Compression strength in MPa Logarithm
1 6.70 1.90
2 6.20 1.82
3 5.70 1.74
4 6.60 1.89
Mean value 6.30 1.84
Standard deviation 0.39 0.06

The characteristic value assuming a lognormal distribution can be com-


puted as follows (for 2.353 see Table 7-26):
f mw ,k = exp(1.84 − 2.353 ⋅ 0.06) = 5.47 MPa . (7-135)

If a normal distribution is assumed, then the characteristic value be-


comes
f mw ,k = 6.30 MPa − 2.353 ⋅ 0.39 MPa = 5.37 MPa . (7-136)

7.3.3.3 Weibull distribution

For the Weibull distribution, the 5% fractile value can be estimated with
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 319

1 (7-137)
⎛ 1 ⎞k
fk = ⎜ − ln(1 − q ) ⎟ .
⎝ λ ⎠
The value q describes the probability that is chosen in our case as 0.05
for the 5% fractile value. The factors λ and k are parameters of the Weibull
distribution, which can be computed based on statistical data. The mean
value and the standard deviation can be computed as
⎛ 1⎞ (7-138)
f m = f0 + λ −1/ k ⋅ Γ ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ,
⎝ k⎠

2 (7-139)
⎛ 2⎞ ⎛ 1⎞
σ =λ −1/ k
Γ ⎜1 + ⎟ − Γ ⎜1 + ⎟ .
⎝ k⎠ ⎝ k⎠
Since the mean value and the standard deviation of the test data can
usually be easily computed, these formulas are useful in computing the
factors λ and k.
Again, an example shows the application. Consider the test results of the
compression strength of natural stone masonry shown in Table 7-27. Using
the mean value of 6.30 MPa and the standard deviation of 0.39 MPa, the k
value can be computed with 20.01 and the λ becomes 5.84 × 10 . The 5%
–17

fractile value is then given as


1 (7-140)
⎛ 1 ⎞ 20.01
fk = ⎜ − −17
ln(0.95) ⎟ = 5.58 MPa .
⎝ 5.84 ⋅10 ⎠

7.3.3.4 Leicester method

The Leicester method estimates the 5% fractile value without the selection
of a probability function (Hunt and Bryant 1996). The 5% fractile value is
computed as
⎛ 2.7 ⋅ v ⎞ (7-141)
fk = A ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ n ⎠
with
n as number of samples preferred higher than 30
v as coefficient of variation preferred smaller than 0.5
A as empirical 5% fractile of the data. This value is often computed by
linear interpolation.
320 7 Safety Assessment

The simple application is shown in the following example. Using 500


stone compression strength tests, the empirical 5% fractile value of the
sample data is estimated with 42.3 MPa. Such estimations can, for example,
be done with many spreadsheet programs such as Excel. In Excel, the
“rang and quantile” function can be used. The coefficient of variation is
0.177. Then, the corrected 5% fractile value is given by
⎛ 2.7 ⋅ 0.177 ⎞ (7-142)
f k = 42.3 MPa ⋅ ⎜ 1 − ⎟ = 42.26 MPa .
⎝ 500 ⎠

7.3.3.5 Öferbeck method


A further technique is the Öfverbeck Power Limit (Hunt and Bryant 1996).
Using the constant ε, subject to the number of samples and the number of
used samples q, the 5% fractile value is given as
q −1 (7-143)
fk = x1q−ε ∏ xiε /( q −1) .
i =1

The relevant constants are given in Table 7-28.

Table 7-28. Relevant constants q and ε subject to the overall sample size
Sample size n Number of used samples q Öfverbeck constant ε
5 2 5.93
6 2 5.35
7 2 4.85
8 2 4.42
9 2 4.03
10 3 3.31
11 3 3.12
12 3 2.96
13 3 2.80
14 3 2.66
15 3 2.53
20 4 2.22
30 5 1.80
40 6 1.58
50 7 1.44

Again, the data of masonry compression strength are used as illustration.


Only four samples are available. Using Table 7-28, q is 2 and 6.00 is chosen
7.3 Semiprobabilistic Safety Concept 321

for ε by extrapolation. The samples are given by 5.7, 6.2, 6.6, and 6.7
MPa. The 5% fractile value is then
q −1 2 −1 (7-144)
fk = x1q−ε ∏ xiε /( q −1) = x12−6.00 ∏ xi
i =1 i =1
6
5.7
= 6.21−6 ⋅ 5.76 /(2 −1) = = 3.74 MPa .
6.25

7.3.3.6 Jaeger and Bakht method


Jaeger and Bakht (1990) present a technique to estimate the 5% fractile
based on a combination of different probability functions. They call this
artificial function a log arc sinh normal polynomial distribution. Assuming
a quadratic polynomial in the distribution, and the consideration of only
the lowest, average and highest test value, the fractile value can be com-
puted with the following steps:
1. Sort the data.
2. Compute the mean value. If the sample number is uneven, then use
the median. If the sample number (n=2 × k) is even, use the follow-
ing formula:
( f k + f k +1 ) (7-145)
fm = .
2
3. Transform the data according to
fi 2 − fm2 (7-146)
yi = .
2 ⋅ fi ⋅ f m
4. Chose the characteristic value—in our case, the 5% fractile value.
Then chose the representing k-value of a normal distribution, here k
= z* = –1,645.
5. Chose a z1 according to Table 7-29.

Table 7-29. Representative z1 value subject to the sample number


Sample number n z1
10 1.34
11 1.38 As approximation, the following equation
12 1.43 can be recommended:
13 1.47 z1 = −0.8004 − 0.0649 ⋅ n + 0.0011 ⋅ n2
14 1.50
15 1.53
16 1.56
322 7 Safety Assessment

Sample number n z1
17 1.59
18 1.62
19 1.65
20 1.67

6. Compute the 5% fractile value for the transformed data:


2 (7-147)
⎛ y − y ⎞⎛ z ⎞ ⎛ y + y ⎞⎛ z ⎞
* *
y* = ⎜ 1 n ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ 1 n ⎟⎜ ⎟ .
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ z1 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ z1 ⎠
7. Compute the 5% fractile value for the original data:

f k = f m ( y* + 1 + ( y* )2 . (7-148)

The introduced list is only one possible technique mentioned by Jaeger


and Bakht (1990); however, they consider this one as the numerically most
robust one. The other techniques consider other data points, such as the
smallest, the second smallest, and the mean value, or other orders of the
polynomial, and yield slightly different 5% fractile values.
Again, an example illustrates the approach. Fifteen bending test results
of granite stones are used. The test results are then related to one specimen
height and listed in Table 7-30.

Table 7-30. Test results and transformed data


No. Bending tensile strength in MPa Percent yi
1 14.710 100.00 0.35106
2 12.802 92.80 0.20674
3 12.700 85.70 0.19858
4 12.506 78.50 0.18291
5 11.150 71.40 0.06719
6 10.829 64.20 0.03793
7 10.822 57.10 0.03729
8 10.426 50.00 0.00000
9 10.208 42.80 –0.02113
10 10.002 35.70 –0.04153
11 9.919 28.50 –0.04987
12 9.664 21.40 –0.07597
13 9.412 14.20 –0.10250
14 6.281 7.10 –0.52875
15 4.233 0.00 –1.02851
References 323

According to Step 2, the mean value is given as fm=10.426 MPa. The


transformed data (Step 3) are already included in Table 7-30. Furthermore,
the 5% fractile value should be computed, therefore z* = –1.645 and z1=
1.53. Then the transformed 5% fractile value is given as

⎛ −1.029 − 0.351 ⎞ ⎛ −1.645 ⎞ ⎛ −1.029 + 0.351 ⎞⎛ −1.645 ⎞


2 (7-149)
y =⎜
*
⎟⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ −1.53 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ −1.53 ⎠
y* = −1.133
and for the original data

( )
f k = 10.426 MPa ⋅ −1.133 + 1 + ( −1.133)2 = 3.94 MPa . (7-150)

7.3.3.7 Binomial distribution


Mehdianpour (2006) has used diagrams of binomal distribution to estimate
characteristic compression strength values. Details can be found in the
original reference.
All mentioned techniques consider the uncertainty of material and load-
ing data in a stochastic way. However, such a consideration does not nec-
essarily end in the preparation of fractile values and partial safety factors.
Increasingly, full probabilistic computations of structures and also of his-
torical stone arch bridges can be found in the literature. Therefore, Chapter 8
discusses the results of those numerical investigations.

References

Allaix DL, Carbone VI & Mancini G (2007) Global Safety Factors for Reinforced
Concrete Beams. Proceedings of the 5th International Probabilistic Workshop,
L Taerwe & D Proske (Eds), Ghent, Belgium
Bamboo (2005) The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and International Network
for Bamboo and Rattan: Bamboo Scaffolds in Building Construction – Design
Guide. www.inbar.int/publication/txt/INBAR_Technical_Report_No23.doc
Bartsch HJ (1991) Mathematische Formeln. 23. Auflage, Fachbuchverlag Leipzig
Bayer (2008) Efficient Modelling and Simulation of Random Fields. Presentation
at the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop, Darmstadt
Bayer V & Ross D (2008) Efficient Modelling and Simulation of Random Fields.
Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop, CA Graubner, H
Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt, pp 3363–380
Bergman LA, Shinozuka M, Bucher CG, Sobczyk K, Dasgupta G, Spanos PD,
Deodatis G, Spencer Jr. BF, Ghanem RG, Sutoh A, Grigoriu M, Takada T,
Hoshiya M, Wedig WV, Johnson EA, Wojtkiewicz SF, Naess A, Yoshida I,
324 7 Safety Assessment

Pradlwarter HJ, Zeldin BA, Schuëller GI & Zhang R (1997) A state-of-the-art


report on computational stochastic mechanics. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 12 (4), pp 197-321
Bergmeister K (2003) Kohlenstofffasern im Konstruktiven Ingenieurbau. Verlag
Ernst und Sohn, Berlin
Bobee B & Ashkar F (1991) The Gamma Family and Derived Distributions
Applied in Hydrology. Water resources publications, Littleton
Bothe E, Henning J, Curbach M, Bösche T & Proske D (2004) Nichtlineare
Berechnung alter Bogenbrücken auf der Grundlage neuer Vorschriften. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 99, Heft 4, pp 289–294
Box GEP & Draper NR (1987) Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces.
John Wiley & Sohn
Braml T & Keuser M (2008) Structural Reliability Assessment for Existing Bridges
with In Situ Gained Structural Data Only – Proceeding and Assessment of
Damaged Bridges. Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop,
CA Graubner, H Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt, pp 149–165
Breitung K (1984) Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals. Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 110 (3), pp 357–366
Breitung K (2002) SORM: Some common misunderstandings and errors. In:
Application of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, A Der Kiureghian,
S Madanat & JM Pestana (Eds), Millpress, Rotterdam 2003, pp 35–40
Bucher C & Bourgund U (1990) A fast and efficient response surface approach for
structural reliability problems. Structural Safety, 7, pp 57–66
Bucher C (1988) Adaptive sampling – An iterative fast Monte Carlo procedure.
Structural Safety, 5, pp 119–126
Bucher C, Hintze D & Roos D (2000) Advanced analysis of structural reliability
using commercial FE-codes. European Congress on Computational Methods
in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS), CIMNE, Barcelona, 11–14
September 2000
Busch P & Zumpe G (1995) Tragfähigkeit, Tragsicherheit und Tragreserven von
Bogenbrücken. 5. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 16.3.1995, Fakultät
Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 153–169
Button D et al. (1993) Glass in Building – A Guide to Modern Architectural Glass
Performance. Pilkington Glass Ltd. Flachglas AG, Pilkington
BÜV (2001) Empfehlung für die Bemessung und Konstruktion von Glas im
Bauwesen. veröffentlicht in: Der Prüfingenieur 18 April 2001, pp 55–69
Cai GQ & Elishakoff I (1994) Refined second-order reliability analysis. Structural
Safety, 14, pp 267–276
Casas JR, Prato CA, Huerta S, Soaje PJ & Gerbaudo CF (2001) Probabilistic
assessment of roadway and railway viaducts. Safety, Risk, Reliability –
Trends in Engineering, Malta 2001, pp 1001–1008
Castillo E, Castillo C & Mínguez R (2008) Use of extreme value theory in
engineering design. Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods
and Applications, S Martorell et al. (Eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London,
pp 2473–2488
References 325

CEB (1976) Comité Euro-International du beton: International system of unified


standard – codes of practice for structures. Volume I: Common unified rules
for different types of construction and material (3rd Draft, Master Copy),
Bulletin d’information 116 E, Paris, November 1976
Cervenka V (2007) Global Safety Format for Nonlinear Calculation of Reinforced
Concrete. Proceedings of the 5th International Probabilistic Workshop,
L Taerwe & D Proske (Eds), Ghent, Belgium
Chudoba R & Vořechovský M (2006) Stochastic modeling of multi-filament
yarns: II. Random properties over the length and size effect, International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 43 (3-4), pp 435–458.
Chudoba R, Vořechovský M & Konrada M (2006) Stochastic modeling of multi-
filament yarns. I. Random properties within the cross-section and size effect,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 43 (3-4), pp 413–434
COST-345 (2004) European Commission Directorate General Transport and
Energy: COST 345 – Procedures Required for the Assessment of Highway
Structures: Numerical Techniques for Safety and Serviceability Assessment –
Report of Working Groups 4 and 5
Curbach M & Proske D (2004) Zur Ermittlung von Teilsicherheitsfaktoren für
Natursteinmaterial. 12. November 2004, 2. Dresdner Probabilistik Symposium.
Technische Universität Dresden. pp 99–128
Curbach M, Michler H & Proske D (2002) Application of Quasi-Random
Numbers in Monte Carlo Simulation. 1st International ASRANet Colloguium.
8–10th July 2002, Glasgow, auf CD
DAfSt – Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton (1996) Richtlinie für Betonbau beim
Umgang mit wassergefährdenden Stoffen, Beuth-Verlag: Berlin
Der Kiureghian A & Ke J-B (1988) The stochastic finite element method in
structural reliability. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 3 (2), pp 105–112
Der Kiureghian A, Haukaas T & Fujimura K (2006) Structural reliability software
at the University of California, Berkeley. Structural Safety 28, pp 44–67
Diamantidis D, Holicky M & Jung K (2007) Assessment of existing structures –
On the applicability of the JCSS recommendations. In: Aspects of Structural
Reliability – In Honor of R. Rackwitz, MH Faber, T Vrouwenvelder, K Zilch
(Eds), Herbert Utz Ver-lag, München
DIN 1045-1 (2001) Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton, Teil 1:
Bemessung und Konstruktion, Juli 2001
DIN 1053-100 (2004) Mauerwerk – Berechnung auf der Grundlage des
semiprobabilistischen Sicherheitskonzeptes. NABau im DIN e.V.: Berlin
DIN 1055-100 (1999): Einwirkungen auf Tragwerke, Teil 100: Grundlagen der
Tragwerksplanung, Sicherheitskonzept und Bemessungsregeln, Juli 1999
DIN 18 516 (1999) Außenwandbekleidungen
DIN 53 804 (1981) Teil 1: Statistische Auswertungen – Meßbare (kontinuierliche)
Merkmale. September 1981
Drezner Z (1992) Computation of the multivariate normal integral. ACM
Transaction on Mathematical Software, 18 (4), pp 470–480
Eibl J & Schmidt-Hurtienne B (1995) Grundlagen für ein neues Sicherheitskonzept,
Bautechnik, 72, Nr. 8, pp 501–506
326 7 Safety Assessment

Eibl J (1992) Nichtlineare Traglastermittlung/Bemessung. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau


87, Heft 6, pp 137–139
EN 1994 (2006) Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1995 (2008) Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
EN 1996 (2006) Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
EN 1999 (2007) Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
Epstein S, Rauzyb A & Reinhart F M (2008) The Open PSA Initiative for Next
Generation Probabilistic Safety Assessment. Proceedings of the 6th
International Probabilistic Workshop, CA Graubner, H Schmidt & D Proske
(Eds), Darmstadt
Estes AC & Frangopol DM (1998) RELSYS: A computer program for structural
system reliability. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 6 (8), pp 901–919
Eurocode 1 (1994) (ENV 1991 –1): Basis of Design and Action on Structures, Part
1: Basis of Design. CEN/CS, August 1994
Fießler B, Hawranek R & Rackwitz R (1976) Numerische Methoden für
probabilistische Bemessungsverfahren und Sicherheitsnachweise. Technische
Universität München, Berichte zur Zuverlässigkeitstheorie, Heft 14
Fischer A & Schnell J (2008) Determination of partial safety factors for existing
structures. Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic Workshop, CA
Graubner, H Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt, pp 133–147
Fischer L (1999) Sicherheitskonzept für neue Normen – ENV und DIN-neu,
Grundlagen und Hintergrundinformationen. Teil 3: Statistische Auswertung
von Stichproben im eindimensionalen Fall. Bautechnik 76 (1999), Heft 2,
pp 167–179, Heft 3, pp 236–251, Heft 4, pp 328–338
Flederer H (2001) Beitrag zur Berechnung durchlaufender Stahlverbundträger im
Gebrauchszustand unter Berücksichtigung streuender Eingangsgrößen.
Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau
Franz G, Hampe E & Schäfer K (1991) Konstruktionslehre des Stahlbetons. Band
II: Tragwerke, Zweite Auflage, Springer Verlag, Berlin
Freudenthal AM (1947) Safety of Structures, Transactions ASCE, V. 112, 1947,
pp 127–180
Genz A (1992) Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities,
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 1, pp 141–149
Ghanem G & Spanos PD (1991) Stochastic Finite Element: A Spectral Approach,
publisher, Springer, New York
Gollwitzer S & Rackwitz R (1990) On the reliability of Daniels systems.
Structural Safety, 7, pp 229–243
Gollwitzer S, Kirchgäßner B, Fischer R & Rackwitz R (2006) PERMAS-
RA/STRUEL system of programs for probabilistic reliability analysis.
Structural Safety 28, pp 108–129
Grunert B, Grunert S & Grieger C (1998) Die historischen Baustoffe der
Marienbrücke zu Dresden. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Technischen
Universität Dresden, 47, Heft 5/6, pp 11–20
Grunert S (1982) Der Sandstein der Sächsischen Schweiz als Naturressource,
seine Eigenschaften, seine Gewinnung und Verwendung in Vergangenheit
und Gegenwart. Dissertation, Technische Universität Dresden
References 327

GruSiBau (1981) Normenausschuß Bauwesen im DIN: Grundlagen zur Festlegung


von Sicherheitsanforderungen für bauliche Anlagen. Beuth Verlag
Güsgen J, Sedlacek G & Blank K (1998) Mechanische Grundlagen der
Bemessung tragender Bauteile aus Glas, Stahlbau 67, pp 281–292
Hasofer AM & Lind MC (1974) Exact and invariant second moment code format,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, 100, pp 111–121
Holicky M (2007) Probabilistic Approach to the Global Resistance Factor for
Reinforced Concrete Members. Proceedings of the 5th International
Probabilistic Workshop, L Taerwe & D Proske (Eds), Ghent, Belgium
Hunt RD & Bryant AH (1996) Statistical Implications of Methods of Finding
Characteristic Strengths. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122 (2), pp.
202–209
Ibrahim Y (1991) Observations on applications of importance sampling in
structural reliability analysis, Structural Safety, 9, pp 269–281
ISO/CD 13822 (1999) Bases for design of structures – Assessment of existing
structures. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva
Jaeger LG & Bakht B (1990) Lower Fractiles of Material Strength from limited
test data. Structural Safety, 7, pp 67–75
Jäger W (2005) Zur Einführung der DIN 1053-100, Mauerwerk – Berechnung auf
der Grundlage des semiprobabilistischen Sicherheitskonzepts. Mauerwerk 9,
1, pp 21–23
JCSS (2004) – Joint Committee of Structural Safety. Probabilistic Modelcode.
www.jcss.ethz.ch
Kandarpa S, Kirkner DJ & Spencer BF (1996) Stochastic damage model for
Brittle materials subjected to monotonic loading. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 122 (8), Aug. 1996, pp 788–795
Klingmüller O & Bourgund U (1992) Sicherheit und Risiko im Konstruktiven
Ingenieurbau. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg
Köylüoglu HU & Nielsen SRK (1994) New approximations for SORM integrals.
Structural Safety, 13, pp 237–246
Lemaire M & Pendola M (2006) PHIMECA-Soft. Structural Safety, 28, pp 130–149
Lin H-Z & Khalessi MR (2006) General outlook of UNIPASS V5.0: A general
purpose probabilistic software system. Structural Safety, 28, pp 196–216
Liu P & Der Kiureghian A (1986) Multivariate distribution models with
prescribed marginals and covariances. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics,
1, pp 105–112
Low BK & Teh CI (2000) Probabilistic Analysis of Pile Deflection under Lateral
Loads. In: Application of Statistics and Probability ICASP 8, RE Melchers &
MG Stewart (Eds), Volume 1, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 407–414
Macke M (2000) Variance reduction in Monte Carlo Simulation of dynamic
systems. Applications of Statistics and Probability (ICASP 8). RE Melchers &
MG Stewart (Eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, Band II, pp 797–804
Maes MA, Breitung K & Dupuis DJ (1993) Asymptotic importance sampling.
Structural Safety, 12, pp 167–186
Mann W (1987) Überlegungen zur Sicherheit im Mauerwerksbau. Mauerwerks-
Kalender. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp 1–5
328 7 Safety Assessment

Mann W (1999) Mauerwerk in Europa. Der Prüfingenieur. 14. April 1999, VPI,
pp 53–59
Mayer M (1926) Die Sicherheit der Bauwerke und ihre Berechnung nach
Grenzkräften anstatt nach zulässigen Spannungen. Verlag von Julius Springer,
Berlin
McBean EA & Rovers FA (1998) Statistical procedures for analysis of environ-
mental monitoring data & risk assessment. Prentice Hall PTR Environmental
Management & Engineering Series, Volume 3, Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper
Saddle River
Mehdianpour M (2006) Tragfähigkeitsbewertung aus Versuchen – Probenanzahl
versus Aussagesicherheit. Proceedings of the 4th International Probabilistic
Symposium, D Proske, M Mehdianpour & L Gucma (Eds), Berlin, 2006
Melchers RE & Faber MH (2001) Aspects of Safety in Design and Assessment of
Deteriorating Structures, Proceedings to the International IABSE Conference
on Safety, Risk and Reliability - Trends in Engineering, March 21-23, Malta
2001, pp. 161-166
Melchers RE (1999) Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. 2nd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons
Mori Y & Ellingwood BR (1993) Time-dependent system reliability analysis by
adaptive importance sampling. Structural Safety, 12, pp 59–73
Most T (2008) An adaptive response surface approach for reliability analyses of
discontinuous limit state functions. Proceedings of the 6th International
Probabilistic Workshop, CA Graubner, H Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt,
pp 381–396
Murzewski J (1974) Sicherheit der Baukonstruktionen. VEB Verlag für Bauwesen,
Berlin, DDR
Norton RL (1996) Machine Design – An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall,
New York
NR (1992) Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN 77: The Art of Scientific Computing.
Cambridge University Press
Onken P, vom Berg W & Neubauer U (2002) Verstärkung der West Gate Bridge,
Melbourne, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, Heft 2, 97 Jahrgang, pp 94–104
Östlund L (1991) An Estimation of gamma-Values. An application of a
probabilistic method. In: Reliability of Concrete Structures. Final report of
Permanent Commission I. CEB Bulletin d’ Information. Heft 202, pp 37–51
Peschel A (1984) Natursteine der DDR – Kompendium petrographischer, petro-
chemischer, petrophysikalischer und gesteinstechnischer Eigenschaften.
Beilage zur Dissertation (B) an der Bergakademie Freiberg
Petschacher M (1994) VaP a Tool for Practicing Engineers. Proceedings of
ICOSSAR’93, GI Schueller et al. (Ed), 6th International Conference on
Structural Safety and Reliability in Innsbruck, Balkema, pp 1817–1823
Pfeiffer U & Quast U (2003) Nichtlineares Berechnen stabförmiger Bauteile.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 98, Volume 9, pp 529–538
Plate EJ (1993) Statistik und angewandte Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung für
Bauingenieure, Ernst & Sohn Verlag, Berlin
Polidori DC, Beck JL & Papadimitriou C (1999) New approximations for reli-
ability integrals. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, April 1999, pp 466–475
References 329

Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung von alten Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität Dresden
Proske D (2008a) Definition of Safety and the Existence of “Optimal Safety”.
Proceedings of the ESREL 2008 conference, Valencia
Proske D (2008b) Catalogue of risks – Natural, technical, health and social risks.
Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg
Proske D, Michler H & Curbach M (2002) Application of quasi-random numbers
in Monte Carlo Simulation. ASRANET, Glasgow, on CD
Pukl R, Novak D, Vorechovsky M & Bergmeister K (2006) Uncertainties of
Material Properties in Nonlinear Computer Simulation. Proceedings of the 4th
International Probabilistic Symposium, D Proske, M Mehdianpour und
L Gucma (Eds), Berlin, pp 127–138
Pukl R, Novák D, Vořechovský M & Bergmeister K (2006) Uncertainties of
material properties in nonlinear computer simulation. D Proske, M
Mehdianpour & L Gucma (Eds), Proceedings of the 4th International
Probabilistic Symposium, 12th–13th October 2006, Berlin
Rachwitz R & Hohenbichler M (1981) An Order Statistics Approach to Parallel
Structural Systems, Berichte zur Zuverlässigkeitstheorie der Bauwerke, SFB
96, Technische Universität München, Heft 58
Rackwitz R & Hohenbichler M (1981) An Order Statistics Approach to Parallel
Structural Systems, Berichte zur Zuverlässigkeitstheorie der Bauwerke, SFB
96, Technische Universität München, Heft 58
Rajashekhar MR & Ellingwood BR (1993) A new look at the response surface
approach for reliability analysis, Structural Safety, 12, pp 205–220
Reh S, Beley J-D, Mukherjee S & Khor EH (2006) Probabilistic finite element
analysis using ANSYS. Structural Safety, 28, pp 17–43
Reid SG (1999) Load–testing for design of structures with Weibull–distributed
strengths. Application of Statistics and Probability (ICASP 8), Sydney, 1999,
Band 2, pp 705–712
Roos D & Bayer V (2008) An efficient robust design optimization approach using
advance surrogate models. Proceedings of the 6th International Probabilistic
Workshop, CA Graubner, H Schmidt & D Proske (Eds), Darmstadt
Ross D & Bucher C (2003) Adaptive response surfaces for structural reliability of
nonlinear finite element structures. NAFEMS Seminar: Use of Stochastics in
FEM Analyses. May 7–8 2003 Wiesbaden
Rüsch R, Sell R & Rackwitz R (1969) Statistische Analyse der Betonfestigkeit.
Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton, Heft 206, Berlin
Schervish MJ (1984) Multivariate normal probabilities with error bound. Applied
Statistics, Royal Statistical Society, 33 (1), pp 81–94
Schlegel R & Will J (2007) Sensitivitätsanalyse und Parameteridentifikation von
bestehenden Mauerwerkstrukturen. Mauerwerk 11, Heft 6, pp 349–355
Schleicher F (Ed) (1949) Taschenbuch für Bauingenieure, Springer-Verlag
Schneider J (1999) Zur Dominanz der Lastannahmen im Sicherheitsnachweis.
Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Edoardo Anderheggen. Institut
für Baustatik und Konstruktion, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
Zürich, pp 31–36
330 7 Safety Assessment

Schubert P (1995) Beurteilung der Druckfestigkeit von ausgeführtem Mauerwerk


aus künstlichen Steinen und Naturstein. Mauerwerkskalender 1995, pp 687–701
Schueller GI & Pradlwarter HJ (2006) Computational stochastic structural
analysis (COSSAN) – a software tool. Structural Safety, 28, pp 68–82
Schueremans L & Van Gemert D (2001) Assessment of existing masonry
structures using probabilistic methods - state of the art and new approaches.
STRUMAS 2001, 18.–20. April 2001, Fifth International Symposium on
Computer Methods in Structural Masonry
Schweckendiek T & Courage W (2006) Structural reliability of sheet pile walls
using finite element analysis. Proceedings of the 4th International Probabil-
istic Symposium, D Proske, M Mehdianpour & L Gucma (Eds), Berlin,
pp 97–111
Shigley JE & Mischke CR (2001) Mechanical Engineering Design. 6th Edition
McGraw Hill. Inc., New York
Song BF (1997) A technique for computing failure probability of structure using
importance sampling. Computers & Structures, 72, pp 659–665
Spaethe G (1992) Die Sicherheit tragender Baukonstruktionen, 2. Neubearbeitete
Auflage, Wien, Springer Verlag
Spaethe G (1992) Die Sicherheit tragender Baukonstruktionen, 2. Neubearbeitete
Auflage, Wien, Springer Verlag
Steel RD & Torrie JH (1991) Prinsip dan Prosedur Statistika, Edition 2, Gramedia
Pustaka Utama, Jakarta, 1991
Storm R (1988) Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, mathematische Statistik und
statistische Qualitätskontrolle. VEB Fachbuchverlag Leipzig
Strauss A & Bergmeister K (2005) Safety concepts of new and existing structures.
Vortrag zur fib Commission 2 Sitzung “Safety and performance concepts” am
23. Mai 2005 in Budapest
Thacker BH, Riha DS, Fitch SHK, Huyse LJ & Pleming JB (2006) Probabilistic
engineering analysis using the NESSUS software. Structural Safety 28,
pp 83–107
Tichý M (1976) Probleme der Zuverlässigkeit in der Theorie von Tragwerken.
Vorträge zum Problemseminar: Zuverlässigkeit tragender Konstruktionen.
Weiterbildungszentrum Festkörpermechanik, Konstruktion und rationeller
Werkstoffeinsatz. Technische Universität Dresden – Sektion Grundlagen des
Maschinenwesens. Heft 3/76
Tonon F & Tonon L (2006) Renovation of the 17th-Century Ponte Lungo bridge
in Chioggia, Italy. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 11 (1), January-February
2006, pp 13–20
Tvedt L (1988) Second-order reliability by an exact integral. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd IFIP Working Conference on Reliability and Optimization on
structural Systems, P Thoft-Christensen (Ed), Springer, pp 377–84
Tvedt L (2006) Proban – probabilistic analysis. Structural Safety, 28, pp 150–163
Val DV & Stewart MG (2002) Safety factors for assessment of existing structures.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 128 (2), pp 258–265
Van der Waerden BL (1957) Mathematische Statistik. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Vanmarcke E (1983) Random fields: Analysis and synthesis. MIT Press
References 331

Visodic JP (1948) Design Stress Factors. Vol. 55, May 1948, ASME International,
New York
Weibull W (1951) A Statistical Distribution of wide Applicability, J. App. Mech.,
Vol. 18, 1951, pp 253
Weiland S (2003) Das Antwort-Flächen-Verfahren. 1st Dresdner Probabilistik-
Symposium – Sicherheit und Risiko im Bauwesen. D Proske (Ed), TU
Dresden, 2nd Edition 2006
Wenzel F – (Ed) (1997) Mauerwerk – Untersuchen und Instandsetzen durch
Injizieren, Vernadeln und Vorspannen. Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer
Bauwerke. Empfehlungen für die Praxis. Sonderforschungsbereich 315,
Universität Karlsruhe
Wiese H, Curbach M, Al-Jamous A, Eckfeldt L & Proske D (2005) Vergleich des
ETV Beton und DIN 1045-1. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 100, Heft 9,
pp 784–794
Wu Y-T, Shin Y, Sues RH & Cesare MA (2006) Probabilistic function evaluation
system (ProFES) for reliability-based design. Structural Safety, 28, pp 164–195
Yuan X-X & Pandey MD (2006) Analysis of approximations for multinormal
integration in system reliability computation. Structural Safety, 28 (4),
pp 361–377
Zhao Y-G & Ono T (1999a) New approximations for SORM: Part 1. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 125 1, pp 79–85
Zhao Y-G & Ono T (1999b) New approximations for SORM: Part 2. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 125 1, pp 86–93
Zhao Y-G & Ono T (1999c) A general procedure for first/second-order reliability
method (FORM/SORM). Structural Safety, 21 (2), pp 97–112
8 Examples

8.1 Introduction

Only a few examples can be found in literature dealing with the probabilis-
tic safety assessment of historical arch bridges. Whereas in other technical
fields such as car design, turbine design, or design of new structures, prob-
abilistic techniques are now common, especially in fields with highly
nonlinear material behaviour such as masonry, and difficult numerical ex-
pression of the overall load-bearing capacity such as found for arch
bridges, the success of probabilistic methods was so far limited. However,
the number of examples rises and a few example are mentioned here.

8.2 Examples in Literature

Modena and Sonda (1998) have investigated a reinforced concrete arch


constructed in 1948 with a span of 60 m by probabilistic computation.
First, they investigated the safety index using only existing data, and re-
–5 –6
ceived 3.78 (7.93 × 10 ) and 4.44 (4.41 × 10 ). After extraction of updated
material properties, the safety index for different cross sections of the arch
–9 –11
increased to 5.80 (3.27 × 10 ) and 6.68 (1.17 × 10 ). Please note the
strong increase of the safety index by only considering more realistic mate-
rial parameters.
Casas (1999) has published probabilistic computations for several his-
torical arch bridges. He has used two different types of models: a linear-
elastic model that describes failure as the origin of a new hinge and a
nonlinear model that considers failure either by overload of the compression
strength of the masonry or by development of a four-hinge mechanism.
The most simple model uses the formulae

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_8,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
334 8 Examples

N M (8-1)
g=H− − 2⋅
fc ⋅ B N
with
• H as arch thickness described by a Gauss distribution with a coefficient
of variation of 10%
• B as arch width described by a Gauss distribution with a coefficient of
variation of 5%
• fc as compression strength of the masonry described by a Gauss distribu-
tion with a coefficient of variation of 20%
• M as a bending moment described by a Gumbel distribution with a coef-
ficient of variation of 10% for the live load and a Gauss distribution
with a coefficient of variation of 5% for the dead load
• N as normal force described by a Gumbel distribution with a coefficient
of variation of 10% for the live load and a Gauss distribution with a co-
efficient of variation of 5% for the dead load
Based on these input data and using the linear-elastic model Casas
(1999) computed for the Magarola Bridge the following safety indexes
(Table 8-1).

Table 8-1. Safety indexes for the Magarola Bridge for the linear-elastic model
(Casas 1999)
Cross section at No correlation r = 0 Strong correlation r = 0.9
Springing 1.54 1.64
Quarter point 4.81 4.82
Crown 1.11 1.14

The results in Table 8-1 give rather low values and indicate an insufficient
safety. The consideration of correlations decreases the uncertainty of the
input data and therefore usually increases the safety index, but in this case
not sufficiently. However, if the mechanical model is changed from type 1 to
type 2 using nonlinear failure considerations, then the safety index improves
strongly. Casas (1999) obtained safety indexes for the bridge under live
load between 10.6 and 14.3 and without live load between 11.6 and 15.5.
For two further bridges, the Jerge Arch Bridge and the San Rafael
bridge, the results are shown in Tables 8-2 and 8-3.
Table 8-2. Safety indexes for the Jerge arch bridge (Casas 1999)
Cross section at No correlation Average correlation Strong correlation
Springing 3.64 3.71 4.26
Quarter point 3.60 3.61 4.32
Crown 3.85 3.84 4.75
8.2 Examples in Literature 335

Table 8-3. Safety indexes for the San Rafael arch bridge (Casas 1999)
Cross section at No correlation
Springing 5.49
Quarter point 7.99
Crown 7.39

In Table 8-4, all results from Casas (1999) are summarized. In general,
it can be seen that linear-elastic models often yield to unacceptable safety
indexes. However, for the computation, the current traffic model by the
Eurocode 1 was assumed and it is understandable that historical bridges
were not designed for such loads. Therefore, cases where the bridges do
not meet the safety requirements in terms of a safety index are understand-
able. However, nonlinear models yield to acceptable safety indexes in all
cases. This confirms that linear-elastic models underestimate the ultimate
load of arch bridges significantly. Obviously, the historical design of the
bridges was based on linear-elastic models, and therefore the bridges were
permanently over designed. However, using more advanced models can
extend the usage of such bridges to the much higher load that we face
today.

Table 8-4. Summary of the probabilistic results from Casas (1999) in terms of the
safety index
Bridge Material Span in m β linear-elastic β nonlinear
Magarola Brick 20.0 1.6 13.0
Jerte Granite stone 22.5 3.5 6.0
San Rafael Concrete 24.0 5.5 17.6
Duenas Limestone 15.0 0.24 10.0
Quintana Concrete 19.0 7.0
Torquemada Concrete 40.0 4.5

Schueremans (2001), Schueremans, Smars and Van Gemert (2001), and


Schueremans and Van Gemert (2001, 2004) have heavily investigated the
safety of arches in terms of safety factors and probabilistic measures. In
one example, they give the static safety factor of 2.39 and the geometrical
safety factor of 1.23 when using average material parameters.
Quan (2004) presents a probabilistic computation of a reinforced con-
crete arch. He receives safety indexes between 3.53 and 4.31 and considers
the values as too low. Quan (2004) has used an independently developed
program.
336 8 Examples

Žak et al. (2003) introduce a probabilistic computation of a historical


arch bridge. The mechanical model was done in the finite element program
ANSYS, however no probabilistic results are included in the publication.
Busch (1998) and Busch and Zumpe (1995) have carried out an intensive
probabilistic investigation of the Marien Bridge in Dresden, Germany.
Möller et al. (1998) and Möller et al. (2002) have also used probabilistic
investigations of historical arch bridges and vaults. Ng and Fairfield (2002)
have carried out a Monte Carlo Simulation to investigate the safety of an
arch bridge in probabilistic terms. Recently, Brencich et al. (2007) carried
out probabilistic computations. Tschötschel (1989) has carried out inten-
sive probabilistic computations of masonry, however he has not dealt with
arch bridges.
In the next section, probabilistic computations of arch bridges carried
out by the authors will be discussed.

8.3 Own Examples

8.3.1 Bridge 1

Bridge 1 is situated near Würzburg in the south of Germany. The bridge is


a six-arch bridge with a span of approximately 25 m. It was constructed
between 1872 and 1875, and it is made of regular coursed ashlar stone
work. The material is red main sandstone, a high-quality coloured sand-
stone with a uniaxial compression strength of up to 140 MPa. Toward the
end of World War II, one pier was blasted. This pier was rebuilt in 1945
and 1946 using concrete. During the reconstruction phase, the so-called
explosion chambers were built inside the pier.
Figure 8-1 shows a view of the site nowadays. A detailed description of
the bridge can be found in Proske (2003). Attention has been drawn to this
bridge because it was hit by ships in 1999.
The investigation for the bridge was split into three steps. First, the
bridge regions most severely stressed during the impact were detected by
simple numerical calculations and then selected for drilling. Since Bridge 1
consists of different materials due to the partial replacement of blasted
piers at the end of World War II, the transfer of results from one structural
element to the same element in another position was not possible. Moreo-
ver, Bridge 1 has a unique foundation. With due regard to these specific
factors, 26 drillings with a length of up to 15 m were planned and carried
out on this bridge. The drillings had an overall length of 150 m: 90 m in
masonry and 60 m in concrete.
8.3 Own Examples 337

Fig. 8-1. Picture of Bridge 1

The drilling produced a comparatively large amount of bridge material


that was used for material testing. More than 500 material tests were car-
ried out, including compressive and tensile strength tests of the sandstone,
mortar, and concrete; Young’s modulus tests; height and width measure-
ments of the sandstone; density measurements; and measurements of the
shear strength of the masonry. With the data from the tests, it was possible
to describe the material input parameters in terms of random distributions.
The choice of the distribution type has been discussed intensively in
Proske (2003). Several statistical techniques have been used to determine
the type of statistical distribution for the investigated material properties.
In addition, the strength of the concrete compressive strength samples was
multimodal. Therefore, this distribution has been decomposed into original
distributions. This statistical effect could also be identified visually on the
testing specimen and historically with documents from the reconstruction
after the war. The statistical properties of the input variables for the nu-
merical model are given in Table 8-5.

Table 8-5. Statistical properties input variables for Bridge 1


Parameter Distribution xma sb Unit
Sandstone compressive strength Lognormal 75.40 21.30 MPa
Concrete compressive strength Lognormal 47.90 22.28 MPa
Sandstone splitting strength Lognormal 4.72 1.30 MPa
Concrete tensile stress Lognormal 1.15 0.69 MPa
Young’s modulus sandstone Lognormal 28,534 7,079.6 MPa
Young’s modulus concrete Lognormal 22,552 8,682.1 MPa
Density sandstone Normal 2.27 0.15 kg/dm3
338 8 Examples

Parameter Distribution xma sb Unit


Density concrete Normal 2.26 0.10 kg/dm3
Mortar compressive strength Lognormal 11.00 7.25 MPa
Ship impact force (frontal) Lognormal 2.04 1.5 MN
Ship impact force (lateral) Lognormal 0.61 0.385 MN
Sandstone height Normal 0.7 0.13 m
Sandstone width Lognormal 0.8 0.08 m
Mortar joint height Lognormal 0.037 0.048 m
Impact height Normal 3.0 0.5 m
a
xm – empirical mean, b s – empirical standard deviation

In the second step, the mechanical behaviour of the bridge under traffic
loads and under ship impact has been modelled with a finite element pro-
gram (ANSYS). The model of Bridge 1 was particularly complex due to
the inhomogeneous structural system. Figure 8-2 permits a view inside the
bridge. Figure 8-3 shows the finite element model using area and volumes
(unmeshed), and Fig. 8-4 shows the principal compression stress inside a
hit pier. The typical element size was about 0.5 m, but smaller elements
were used in some regions. Cracks observed on the bridge, and caused by
dead and live loads, could be approved with the used models.
To achieve such results, a realistic numerical model for the description
of the load-bearing behaviour of natural stone masonry had to be incorpo-
rated into the finite element program. There exist several different tech-
niques to describe the load-bearing behaviour of natural stone structures
under normal and shear forces. The models from Mann, Hilsdorf, Berndt
and Sabha for one layer walls, and the models from Warnecke and Eger-
mann for several layer walls (Warnecke et al. 1995) have been investigated
(Proske 2003). The von Berndt (1996) model was chosen after intensive
numerical investigations to describe the load-bearing behaviour of the nat-
ural stone piers of the bridges. This model is valid for normal forces and
shear forces and therefore able to describe the load conditions under im-
pact. Also, this model has proven to reach acceptable results in the com-
parison of the load-bearing behaviour with a wide range of experimental
data. In addition, the implementation into the finite element program was
convenient.
8.3 Own Examples 339

Fig. 8-2. Assembly of Bridge 1

Fig. 8-3. Example of a finite element model of Bridge 1 (not meshed)


340 8 Examples

Fig. 8-4. Principal compression stress in longitudinal section of frontal hit pier of
Bridge 1

Using this model, the calculation of one deterministic dynamic impact


against Bridge 1 on an IBM workstation with a power II processor took
about one hour. Of course, simple linear-elastic static and dynamic models
for the bridge have also been used to check the results of the sophisticated
models.
To incorporate the random variables in the third step, a probabilistic cal-
culation was done using the FORM and SORM methods. After the FORM
(Spaethe 1992) calculation, different SORM methods were applied to im-
prove the quality of the first. Importance sampling has also been used to
back the results (Spaethe 1992). All the methods used gave results that
were comparable from an engineering point of view.
The criteria for the probabilistic calculation included the results of the
dynamic finite element calculation. Therefore, the so-called limit state
function was not available in an analytically closed form. One way to ob-
tain results with the probabilistic calculation with a known limit state func-
tion that is not analytically closed is the application of the response surface
methodology; for example, Rajashekhar and Ellingwood (1993). This pro-
cedure was included in the finite element program ANSYS (Curbach and
Proske 1998). The FORM and SORM techniques were also incorporated
into the finite element program ANSYS using the customized capabilities
of the program. For that purpose, the techniques had to be provided as
FORTRAN subroutines and could then be compiled and linked into the
program.
8.3 Own Examples 341

8.3.2 Bridge 2

Bridge 2 has been chosen for comparison reasons with Bridge 1. Bridge 2
was built in 1893 and consists of a steel frame superstructure with natural
stone piers. Parts of the bridge were destroyed during World War II. The
static system of Bridge 2 is a four-field beam with a span of approximately
39 m. Due to the different static systems of Bridges 1 and 2, Bridge 2 will
show a different behaviour under impact. In contrast to the excellent natu-
ral stone material of Bridge 1, the material in Bridge 2 has a lower strength
(Table 8-6). Figure 8-5 shows a view of the site nowadays. A detailed de-
scription of the bridge can also be found in Proske (2003). This bridge was
chosen to represent typical historical German bridges with steel superstruc-
tures and masonry piers over inland waterways.

Fig. 8-5. Picture of Bridge 2

Table 8-6. Statistical properties input variables for Bridge 2


Parameter Distribution xma sb Unit
Natural stone compressive strength Normal 21.2 2.4 MPa
Natural stone splitting strength Normal 0.38 0.094 MPa
(lognormal)
Mortar compressive strength Normal 15.5 3.58 MPa
Ship impact force (frontal) Lognormal 2.04 1.5 MN
Ship impact force (protection) Lognormal 0.046 0.8368 MN
Ship impact force (lateral) Lognormal 0.61 0.385 MN
Impact height Normal 3.0 0.5 m
Normal load Normal 0.242 0.0242 MPa
a b
xm – empirical mean, s – empirical standard deviation
342 8 Examples

First, the maximum possible impact forces were investigated. In the next
evaluation step, the probabilistic investigation was accomplished. The re-
sults of the probabilistic investigation of Bridges 1 and 2 are shown in
Table 8-7. Several structural solutions to increase the load-bearing capa-
city of the bridges under ship impact were also investigated. They are
visualized in Fig. 8-6. The results are shown as the probability of failure,
either per impact P(V|A) or per year P(V∩A). The value per year also in-
cludes the probability of the ship impact event. To show that the models of
the bridges are comparable, the probability of failure under dead and live
load conditions were also evaluated. Lines 6 and 14 from Table 8-7 show
approximately the same value. Only these two lines refer to the failure of
the piers under normal stress, all other lines refer to the shear failure of the
piers or the arch. To allow a better comparison of both bridges, Table 8-8
summarizes the major properties of Bridges 1 and 2. The maximum per-
-6
mitted probability of failure per year is about 1.3 × 10 (E DIN 1055-100).
Due to unsatisfactory results (see Table 8-7), the description of safety in
terms of risk has been extended. However, the risk assessment is not dis-
cussed here.
Table 8-7. Probability of failure for different structural versions

Dead and Live load

Pre-stressed

Dead and Live load

Pre-stressed

Note: For both bridges, there exist different probabilities of impact – row VIII and IX for Bridge 2 and row X and XI for Bridge 1.
To compare both bridges, Bridge 1 has in row VIII and IX the same probabilities of impact applied as for Bridge 2. Note: The
probabilities are given as multiples of 10–6
a g
The pier has been found with a 3 m crack Pre-stressing of the pier with no-bond tendons (2 × 2 MN and 2 × 4 MN, respec-
b
Assumption of closing the crack tively)
8.3 Own Examples

c h
Size of the pier increased by factor 2.3 Reinforced concrete replacement type piles (2 × 3 ∅ 1,5 m) inside the pier and
d
Hypothetical material with higher tensile strength closing the explosion chamber
e i
Explosion chamber was found inside the piers Use of threaded rods (GEWI) inside the piers (2 × 4) and closing explosion
343

f
Closing of the explosion chamber chamber
f
Not considering an impact
344 8 Examples

Fig. 8-6. Visualization of the investigated different strengthening technologies for


Bridge 1 (top) and Bridge 2 (bottom)
8.3 Own Examples 345

Table 8-8. Comparison of the properties of Bridge 1 and Bridge 2


Bridge 1 Bridge 2
Probability of failure per impact 0.023 (1.0)a 0.15 (6.5)a
Probability of failure under dead and 2.030·10–4 (1.0)a 2.400·10–4 (1.2)a
live loads
Area of the pier in m2 48 (1.9)a 25 (1.0)a
Dead load in MN 37 (7.4)a 5 (1.0)a
Existing normal stress in MPa 0.84 (3.2)a 0.26 (1.0)a
Acceptable normal stress in MPa 25 (2.5)a 10 (1.0)a
Acceptable shear stress in MPa 0.8 (2.7)a 0.3 (1.0)a
Maximal dynamic impact force in MN 13.0 (2.9)a 4.5 (1.0)a
Quantile value of the impact force in % 99.99 97.00
a
Numbers in brackets give the ratio between the two bridges

8.3.3 Bridge 3

The third example deals with a railway bridge constructed between 1911
and 1913. The bridge consists of three arch spans built of brick masonry
with concrete backfill. In the beginning, different statical models were
developed, starting with simple beam models and increasing towards
two- and three-dimensional finite element models with nonlinear material
behaviour. Figure 8-7 shows a two-dimensional model using ATENA. Be-
cause the railroads are not symmetrically located at the bridge, a three-
dimensional model was also created (Fig. 8-8). The modelling of the arch
was done in shell elements and the shell elements were fixed to the piers.
Input data were based on material tests. The material was provided by core
drilling. A nonlinear computation on an IBM working station with 2 GB
RAM required approximately one hour. Besides the deterministic compu-
tation, the probability of failure was also computed.

Fig. 8-7. Finite element model of Bridge 3 using ATENA


346 8 Examples

Fig. 8-8. Finite element model of Bridge 3 using the program ANSYS

8.3.4 Bridge 4

Bridge 4 is a railway masonry arch bridge made of natural stones (Fig. 8-9).
The bridge has an overall length of 423 m and consists of 34 arches and 33
piers. The arches have a span of approximately 10 m. The piers are distin-
guished into regular piers and group piers. Group piers simply have a
greater width (2.8 m) in comparison to normal piers (1.5 m).
The bridge was constructed in 1871 and was refurbished in 1929–1930.
Originally the bridge was designed for two railway tracks, however only
one track is in use. In general, the bridge seems to be in good condition,
but some crack damage and deformations of the spandrel walls were
found. As a result of the investigation, the cracks were related to centrifu-
gal forces and unsymmetrical loads of the train since the bridge is located
in a curvature.
The numerical load-bearing investigation started by constructing a fixed
arch, a two-hinged arch, and a three-hinge arch beam model. For those
simple models, the acceptable stress values were exceeded. Besides the
first models, drillings were also carried out at the bridge. Based on the
results in terms of material properties, the arch beam models were im-
proved (Figs. 8-10 and 8-11) and nonlinear two-dimensional (Fig. 8-12) and
three-dimensional models were created (Fig. 8-13). Considering the back-
8.3 Own Examples 347

fill and the spandrel walls, the load-bearing capacity could be temporarily
proved. If one considers that the original suggestion was the destruction of
the bridge and the construction of a new reinforced concrete bridge, the re-
sult can be seen as a success. It was recommended to improve the backfill
and add a reinforced concrete slab, however the owner agreed only to the
concrete slab. The probability of failure was also computed.

Fig. 8-9. Picture of Bridge 4

Fig. 8-10. Simple arch beam models without backfill


348 8 Examples

Fig. 8-11. Simple arch beam model considering the backfill

Fig. 8-12. Two-dimensional model using ATENA

Fig. 8-13. Three-dimensional model using ANSYS

8.3.5 Bridge 5

The fifth bridge is a thought-up bridge using average geometrical and ma-
terial parameters based on references. The bridge was then modelled using
the finite element programs ATENA (Fig. 8-14) and ANSYS (Fig. 8-15).
The probability of failure per year was then computed with 8.8 × 10 .
–6
8.3 Own Examples 349

Fig. 8-14. Finite element model using ATENA

Fig. 8-15. Finite element model using ANSYS

8.3.6 Bridge 6

Bridge 6 is an arch bridge built of tamped concrete using granite stones in


the arch. Drilling cores were taken from the structure, and a beam model
was developed by Bothe et al. (2004) using the software package
SOFISTIK (Fig. 8-16). A probabilistic computation was then carried out to
define a partial safety factor of the arch system.
350 8 Examples

Fig. 8-16. Beam model for Bridge 6 using the software SOFISTIK (Bothe et al.
2004)

8.3.7 Summary

Several bridge structures investigated by deterministic and probabilistic


methods have been introduced. Table 8-9 compares the results with other
probabilistic calculations of historical bridges based on references or cal-
culated by different authors. The authors are well aware of the influence of
different mechanical models or different input data. However, the histori-
cal bridges have existed under real world load conditions for a long time
and the results of a probabilistic calculation must reflect this fact in terms
of comparability.

Table 8-9. Probabilities of failure for different historical arch bridges


Proof under dead and live loads Chosen value per Reference
Mulden Bridge Podelwitz in 1888a 591.50·10–6 Year Möller et al. (1998)
Flöha Bridge Olbernhau 0.04·10–6 Year Möller et al. (2002)
Syraltal Bridge Plauen in 1905 360.00·10–6 Year Möller et al. (2002)
Bridge 1 (Bernd model) in 1875 4.10·10–6 Year Proske (2003)
Bridge 2 in 1893 4.80·10–6 Year Proske (2003)
Bridge 5 8.8⋅10–6 Year
Marien Bridge Dresden in 1846 1,279.0·10–6 Load Busch (1998)
Bridge 1 (Mann model) in 1875 33,430.·10–6 Load Proske (2003)
Bridge 1 (Berndt model) in 1875 248.0·10–6 Load Proske (2003)
Bridge 2 constructed in 1893 203.0·10–6 Load Proske (2003)
Bridge 3 343.0·10–6 Load
Bridge 6 159.0·10–6 Load
Artificial Bridge 130.0·10–6 Year Schueremans et al. 2001
Magarola Bridge 5.48·10–2–10–12 Year Casas (1999)
Jerte Bridge 2.33·10–4–10–10 Year Casas (1999)
8.4 Further Examples 351

Proof under dead and live loads Chosen value per Reference
San Rafael Bridge 1.90·10–8–10–12 Year Casas (1999)
Duenas Bridge 4.05·10–1 –10–12 Year Casas (1999)
Quintana Bridge 1.28·10–12 Year Casas (1999)
Torquemada Bridge 3.40·10–6 Year Casas (1999)
a
Limit state of serviceability

8.4 Further Examples

The authors have not only investigated arch bridges using probabilistic mod-
els, but also many other historical and modern structures. To show the appli-
cation to other historical structures, two further examples are illustrated.

8.4.1 Historical Stone Beam Bridges

In the Lausitz part of Saxony, Germany, many simple stone beam bridges
built of Lausitz granite are found (Fig. 8-17). Such bridges often have an
age of more than 150 years and therefore do not comply with current struc-
tural codes. To conserve these historical structures, a proof concept was
developed that not only considers special properties of the material, but
also complies with the new code generation using partial safety factors.
For the development, several tests on real-scale stone bridges were car-
ried out. The bending tests not only included original stones but also
strengthened stones. The mass of the stones reached up to 1 tonne. Besides
tests on the entire stones, compression and splitting tensile tests were also
carried out to predict the bending tensile strength indirectly. Using the test
data, statistical data investigation was carried out and characteristic bend-
ing tensile strength values, as well as partial safety factors, were given
(Curbach et al. 2004). The characteristic bending tensile strength can be
evaluated as a function of the stone height. The concept also considers the
nondestructive tests in the partial safety factor for the stone material. If ul-
trasonic or radar tests are carried out and confirm a damage-free stone ma-
terial, then the partial safety factor can be decreased from 1.7 to 1.5.
352 8 Examples

Fig. 8-17. Stone bridges in Saxony, Germany

8.4.2 Anchoring Chamber of the Blue Wonder Bridge

The next example considers only a part of a bridge: the numerical investi-
gation of the anchoring chamber of the Blue Wonder Bridge in Dresden
(Fig. 8-18). The bridge experienced a major flood in 2002. Although the
bridge looks like a steel framework bridge, it is actually a suspension
bridge. The top chord of the framework functions like a suspension cable
and the framework inclusive of the roadway hangs on this element. Even
further, the frameworks are constructed like independent slabs. This was
done to design a statical determined system, which was easier to calculate
during the time of construction at the end of the 19th century. The different
slabs are separated by hinges. Since a few of the hinges do not function
very well anymore, different statical systems have to be considered nowa-
days for recomputation. Whereas the dead load is still applied to the stati-
cal determined system, traffic and temperature loads have to be applied to
a statical indeterminate system. However, all loading cases function only if
the tensile forces in the top chord can be transferred to the foundations.
This is mainly done in the anchoring chamber where a counterweight is lo-
cated. During the flood in 2002, the question come up as to which water
level the anchoring chamber can bear the water pressure and when the an-
choring chamber should at least partially be flooded to limit the maximum
water pressure. If the anchoring chamber fails completely, then the coun-
terweight goes nearly completely underwater and is put under buoyant
force. However, the load-bearing capacity of the bridge then decreases.
8.4 Further Examples 353

Since the anchoring chamber is built of major stone elements with lean
concrete and has a complicated three-dimensional body, a finite element
model was used for the computation (Fig. 8-19). The nonlinear computa-
tion of a loading case ran up to one day on a PC. The input data for the
computation were partially based on material tests using test specimen
from core drillings.
As a deterministic result, the normal load-bearing capability of the
bridge can be provided up to 7 m of Dresden water level. The computa-
tion confirmed a partial filling of the anchoring chamber during the
2002 flood with a Dresden water level of more than 9 m. In relation to
the return period of such water levels, the probability of failure for the
bridge under the flooding load and without traffic restriction during
flooding has been estimated.

Fig. 8-18. Blue Wonder Bridge in Dresden, Germany


354 8 Examples

Fig. 8-19. Anchoring chamber finite element model and load during flooding

8.5 Conclusion

Humans can never describe the reality in one single model since all models
simplify and abstract. This is valid for social, chemical, physical, or
mathematical models. The limits of the models follow the general laws and
limits in certain areas of science. However, in contrast to scientific think-
ing, humans behave differently under everyday life conditions. They per-
manently change the limits of model borders independent from any admin-
istrative scientific types or pedagogic rules. That means, when a model
does not fit to describe real-world behaviour, the model will be changed
independent from the amount of knowledge we have. For example, we do
not have permanent scientific studies about the traffic density of roads on
hand, but we have to decide which road we would take and we are able to
do that. Models have to be developed, and have to be effective and appli-
cable. Therefore, all the models introduced here do have their meaning.
There may be cases where a linear-elastic model fits best to the conditions.
In other cases, a full probabilistic computation may be required. Even fur-
ther, in the case of historical arch bridges, we have had a development
8.5 Conclusion 355

of models for probably more than 2,000 years and even now, sometimes
the early simple rules may be of use. Such a development can be seen all
over the engineering fields. For example, for steel bridges, often we apply
advanced finite element models, however simple beam models are still
used (Unterweger 2002).
However, all humans develop their models based on their gained
information over a lifetime and their knowledge. That means that every
human develops different models based on his genetic code, his own
experience, and history. If humans reach the same results despite that
diversity using their own models, we can assume that the models function
well and are objective. The term “objectivity” can be differently defined.
For example, objectivity is the independence of the goal of an
investigation and the chosen model. In other words, objective decisions are
conscious decisions. Another definition of objectivity is based on the length
of causal relationships.
The model for the investigation of an arch bridge should also be objec-
tive. However, as stated above, the models are related to the individual.
Engineers often have different opinions and discuss different parameters,
different models, and different assumptions. Some readers may not agree
with the presented models or statements, while others do. The final ques-
tion is then are we able to describe the safety of arch structures objectively
or will we have under all conditions some subjective parts, and if so, are
we able to transfer the subjective parts into codes or rules?
We assume that research in the field of arch bridges will continue to ex-
perience progress by the objective description of the load-bearing capacity
of arch bridges, such as that shown in Schubert (2003), Purtak et al.
(2007), ICOMOS (2001), Ciria (2006), and Schiemann (2005).
However, this is only one part. We will underestimate the subjective
part when we do not consider subjective elements of bridges. In many
books, arch bridges are only dealt with in a subjective way when discuss-
ing the beauty of such bridges (Widmer 1996, Stiglat 1997, Sprotte 1977,
Pearce and Jobson 2002, Mühlen 1969, Dietrich 1998, Cruppers 1965, and
Bonatz and Leonhardt 1953). The objective modelling of complex systems
is limited: complex systems under all conditions include properties that
can only be assessed subjectively (Proske 2008).
Arch bridges are, for many people, not only a tool to cross a river or a
valley; they are part of the human history, culture, and human effort. They
make proud, they often fit perfectly into the landscape, and they are so
long-lasting. They are probably, besides temples, the technical product
with the longest usage time, sometimes reaching 2,000 years. We rather doubt
that we can currently build bridges that can be used in the year 4,000 A.D.
356 8 Examples

In everything that man pushed by his vital instinct, builds and raises,
for me, nothing is more beautiful or more precious than bridges.
Bridges are more important than houses,
more sacred because they are more useful than temples.
They belong to everybody and they are the same for everybody,
always built in the right place
in which the major part of human necessity crosses,
more durable than all other constructions.

Ivo Andrić 1892–1975: “Na Drini ćuprija”,


taken from Armaly, Blasi and Hannah (2004)
References 357

References

Armaly M, Blasi C & Hannah L (2004) Stari Most: rebuilding more than a historic
bridge in Mostar. Museum International, Blackwell Publishing, No. 224, 56
(4), pp 6–17
Berndt E (1996) Zur Druck- und Schubfestigkeit von Mauerwerk – experimentell
nachgewiesen an Strukturen aus Elbsandstein. Bautechnik 73 (1996), Heft 4,
pp 222–234
Bonatz P & Leonhardt F (1953) Brücken. Verlag Karl Robert Lange Wiesche.
Königstein im Taunus
Bothe E, Henning J, Curbach M, Bösche T & Proske D (2004) Nichtlineare Be-
rechnung alter Bogenbrücken auf der Grundlage neuer Vorschriften. Beton-
und Stahlbetonbau 99, Heft 4, pp 289–294
Brencich A, Bambarotta L & Sterpi E (2007) Stochastic distribution of compres-
sive strength: effect on the load carrying capacity of masonry arches. Proceed-
ings of the Arch 07 – 5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, PB
Lourenço, DV Oliveira & A Portela (Eds), 12–14 September 2007, Madeira,
pp 641–648
Busch P & Zumpe G (1995) Tragfähigkeit, Tragsicherheit und Tragreserven von
Bogenbrücken. 5. Dresdner Brückenbausymposium, 16.3.1995, Fakultät
Bauingenieurwesen, Technische Universität Dresden, pp 153–169
Busch P (1998) Probabilistische Analyse und Bewertung der Tragsicherheit
historischer Steinbogenbrücken: Ein Beitrag zur Angewandten
Zuverlässigkeitstheorie. Dissertation. Technische Universität Dresden
Casas JR (1999) Assessment of masonry arch bridges. Experiences from recent
case studies. Current and future trends in bridge design, construction and
maintenance in Bridge design construction and maintenance, PC Das,
DM Frangopol & AS Nowak (Eds). Thomas Telford, London, pp 415–423
Ciria (2006) Masonry and brick arch bridges (RP692), www.ciria.org
Cruppers H (1965) Die Trierer Römerbrücken. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz,
1965
Curbach M & Proske D (1998) Module zur Ermittlung der Versagenswahrschein-
lichkeit. 16. CAD-FEM Nutzermeeting. Grafing
Curbach M, Günther L & Proske D (2004) Sicherheitskonzept für Brücken aus
Granitsteindeckern. Mauerwerksbau, Heft 4, pp 138–145
Dietrich RJ (1998) Faszination Brücken – Baukunst, Technik, Geschichte. Verlag
Georg D. W. Callwey, München
ICOMOS (2001) Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural
restoration of architectural heritage, International Scientific Committee for
Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage, Draft Ver-
sion n°11, September 2001
Modena C & Sonda D (1998) Safety evaluation and retrofitting of an r.c bridge.
Arch Bridges: History, Analysis, Assessment, Maintenance and Repair. Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Arch Bridge Conference, A Sinopoli
(Ed), Venice 6.–9. October 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 223–229
Möller B, Beer M, Graf W, Schneider R & Stransky W (1998) Zur Beurteilung
der Sicherheitsaussage stochastischer Methoden. Sicherheitsrisiken in der
358 8 Examples

Tragwerksmodellierung, 2. Dresdner Baustatik-Seminar. 9. Oktober 1998,


Technische Universität Dresden, pp 19–41
Möller B, Graf W, Beer M & Bartzsch M (2002) Sicherheitsbeurteilung von
Naturstein-Bogenbrücken. 6. Dresdner Baustatik-Seminar. Rekonstruktion
und Revitalisierung aus statisch-konstruktiver Sicht. 18. Oktober 2002.
Lehrstuhl für Statik + Landesvereinigung der Prüfingenieure für Bautechnik
Sachsen + Ingenieurkammer Sachsen. Technische Universität Dresden, pp
69–91
Mühlen F (1969) Technische Kulturdenkmale des Wasser-, Straßen- und
Brückenbaus in Westfalen. Deutsche Kunst und Denkmalpflege Jahrgang
1969, Sonderdruck
Ng K-H & Fairfield CA (2002) Monte Carlo Simulation for Arch Bridge
Assessment. Construction and Building Materials 16, pp 271–280
Pearce M & Jobson R (2002) Bridge Builders. John Wiley & Sohns, Ltd. London
Proske D (2003) Ein Beitrag zur Risikobeurteilung von alten Brücken unter
Schiffsanprall. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität Dresden
Proske D (2008) Catalogue of Risks – Natural, technical, health and social risks.
Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg
Purtak F, Geißler K & Lieberwirth P (2007) Bewertung bestehender
Natursteinbogenbrücken. Bautechnik 8, Heft 8, pp 525–543
Quan Q (2004) Modeling current traffic load, safety evaluation and SFE analysis
of four bridges in China. Risk Analysis IV, CA Brebbia (Ed). WIT-Press,
Southampton 2004
Rajashekhar MR & Ellingwood BR (1993) A new look at the response surface ap-
proach for reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 12, pp 205–220
Schiemann L (2005) Tragverhalten historischer gemauerter Bogenbrücken
(Dissertation in Bearbeitung), http://www.lt.arch.tu-muenchen.de/
Schubert P (2003) Übersicht über abgeschlossene und laufende Forschungsvorhaben
im Mauerwerksbau: Realistische Tragfähigkeitseinstufung gemauerter
Bogenbrücken mit Hilfe numerischer Berechnungen. Mauerwerk Kalender,
Jahrgang 2004, p 646
Schueremans L & Van Gemert D (2001) Assessment of existing masonry struc-
tures using probabilistic methods – state of the art and new approaches.
STRUMAS 2001 18.-20. April 2001, Fifth International Symposium on Com-
puter Methods in Structural Masonry
Schueremans L & Van Gemert D (2004) Assessing the Safety of Existing Struc-
tures: Reliability Based Assessment Framework and Applications. WTA Con-
ference Prague November 23.–24., 2004
Schueremans L (2001) Probabilistic evaluation of structural unreinforced ma-
sonry, December 2001, Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Fac-
ulteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen, Departement Burgerlijke Bouwkunde,
Heverlee, Belgien,
Schueremans L, Smars P & Van Gemert D (2001) Safety of arches - a probabilis-
tic approach. 9th Canadian masonry symposium, Frederiction: University of
New Brunswick, Canada, 12 pp
Spaethe G (1992) Die Sicherheit tragender Baukonstruktionen, 2. Neubearbeitete
Auflage, Wien, Springer Verlag
References 359

Sprotte B (1977) Aus der Geschichte der Tauberbrücken. Eigenverlag, 6893


Kreuzwetheim, Brückenstraße 30
Stiglat K (1997) Brücken am Weg. Frühe Brücken aus Eisen und Beton in
Deutschland und Frankreich. Ernst und Sohn, Berlin
Tschötschel M (1989) Zuverlässigkeitstheoretisches Konzept zur Bemessung von
Mauerwerkskonstruktionen. Dissertation, Technische Hochschule Leipzig
Unterweger H (2002) Globale Systemberechnung von Stahl- und Verbundbrücken
– Leistungsfähigkeit einfacher Stabmodelle, Habilitation, TU Graz
Warnecke P, Rostasy FS & Budelmann H (1995) Tragverhalten und Konsolidierung
von Wänden und Stützen aus historischem Natursteinmauerwerk.
Mauerwerkskalender 1995, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp 623–685
Widmer M (1996) Eisenbahnbrücken. Schweiz, Deutschland, Österreich. Transpress
Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart
Žak J, Florian A & Hradil P (2003) A contribution to the analysis of historical
structures using LHS method. Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture VIII, CA Brebbia (Ed), WIT-Press 2003, Southampton,
pp 252–256
Index

A Arch geometry, 33, 34


Archtec, 248
Abutments, 28 Arithmetic mean, 313
Additional-leaf masonry, 188 Assessment, 100, 265
Aging, 217 Assessment scheme, 14
Aita method, 124 Auxerre-traffic, 77
Alcántara, 3
Analysis method, 100 B
Aquaduct, 25
Arch Backfill, 25, 130, 133, 142, 238
basket, 34, 35 Basket arch, 34, 35
catenary, 34 Beam models, 125
circular, 34 Behaviour
cycloid, 34 stress-strain, 139
elliptic, 34 Binomial distribution, 323
geometry, 34 Blue wonder bridge, 75
half wave, 34 Boldness
irregular, 32 coefficient, 116
maximum length, 115 Breaking forces, 87
parable 4th order, 34 Bridge, 345, 347, 352
parabolic, 34, 35 Bridge in bridge, 239
sinus curve, 34 Bridge class
skewed, 30 road traffic, 77
thickness, 104, 111 Bridge types
Arch bridges statically, 29
computation, 102
concrete, 49 C
history, 36
medieval, 40 Catenary arch, 34
number, 50 Censored data, 314
skewed, 33 Characteristic load
steel, 47 road traffic, 69, 70
stone, 36 traffic moments, 80
terms, 20 Characteristic value, 310
wooden, 48 Chemical weathering, 226

D. Proske, P. van Gelder, Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-77618-5_BM 2,
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
362 Index

Chipping, 223 Destruction, 218


Circular arch, 34 Destructive test, 202
Cleaning, 236, 241 Deterioration, 219
Coefficient of boldness, 116 Diagrams
Collapse, 129, 221 moment-axial force, 187
Commercial programs Discontinuities, 218
probabilistic computation, 295 Discrete element method, 140
Compound beam model, 133 Displaced stone, 234
Compression strength Distribution
masonry, 176 binomial, 323
mortar, 173 lognormal, 318
sandstone, 169 normal, 316
Computation Weibull, 318
historical stone arch bridges, 99 Drilling, 203
Concrete arch bridges, 49 Drying, 237
Conductivity
electrical, 208 E
Conservation, 237
Contamination, 218 Economical growth, 39
Contour scaling, 223 Effective bending stiffness, 134
Copula, 294 Effective height, 128
Core, 204 Effective width, 148
Cornigliano Bridge, 27 Egyptians, 36
Correlation, 294, 316 Electrical conductivity, 208
Corrupted data, 314 Electric resistivity, 200
Coverage, 129 Elliptic arch, 35
Crack, 219, 229, 230, 231 Empirical rules, 100
diagonal, 234 Endoscopy, 201
longitudinal, 231 Etruscans, 36
transversal, 232 Evaluation, 17
Crown, 104 Exfoliation, 223
Curvature, 23, 33 Experimental test, 208
Cycloid arch, 34
F
D
Fabricius bridge, 37
Damages, 14, 217, 218, 219 Failure, 221
spandrel walls, 234 types, 101
Data, 314 Failure surface, 138, 139
Dead load, 92 Fatigue, 220
Debris flow impact, 221 FILEV method, 121
Deformation, 218, 220, 227 Finite element method, 136
Degradation, 220 First order reliability method, 270, 340
Design work time, 217 Flaking, 223
Index 363

Flat jack, 201 Interval


Flooding, 221 inspection, 236
FORM, 270, 340 Interventions
Front wall, 25 structural, 18
Investigation, 199
G
J
Geometry
arch, 33 Joint pattern
Global safety factor, 302 skewed bridge, 33
Greek, 36
Grouting, 237, 246 K
Growth
economical, 39 Kurtosis, 313

H L

Half wave arch, 34 Lasercanning, 209


Harvey method, 123 Load
Height breaking forces, 87
effective, 128 dead load, 92
Hinge, 132 impact, 89
Historical rules, 100 initial drive forces, 86
Historic research, 200 railroad traffic, 82
History road traffic, 67
arch bridges, 36 settlements, 89
Hypersphere division method, 281 snow, 92
temperature, 89
I wind, 88
Load border system, 85
ICOMOS, 14 Load test, 141
Impact-echo, 206 Lognormal distribution, 318
Impact forces, 89 Lorry classes, 73
Importance Sampling, 340 Loss of material, 218
Income, 38
Increase of width, 252 M
Infrared thermography, 201
Initial drive forces, 86 Maintenance, 56, 235, 236
Injection, 238, 246 Maintenance cost, 56
Inspection, 236 Martinez method, 124
Inspection concepts, 14 Masonry, 165, 338
Inspection interval, 236 additional-leaf, 188
364 Index

Masonry compression strength Moment-Axial force diagrams, 187


model Monitoring, 201
Berndt, 181 Monte Carlo Simulation, 285
DIN 1053, 178 crude, 285
DIN 1053–100, 177 variance reduced, 286
Ebner, 185 Mortar, 166, 172
empirical exponential, 179 historical, 173
Francis, 184 Mortar refurbishement, 243
Hilsdorf, 179 Movement, 219
Khoo & Hendry, 184 Multimodal data, 314
Mann, 180 Multi ring arch, 26
Ohler, 183
Sabha, 183 N
Schnackers, 185
Stiglat, 184 Nailing, 237
Masonry strength, 165 NDT, 201
MDT, 202 Non-destructive test, 201, 205
Mechanical cleaning, 237 Non-metallic reinforcement, 249
Method Normal distribution, 316
Aita, 124 Number of arch bridges, 50
Breitung, 274
Cai & Elishakoff, 280 O
discrete element, 140
FILEV, 121 Observation concepts, 20
finite element, 136 Outlier, 314
Harvey, 123 Overload, 219
Jaeger & Bakht, 321
Köylüoglu & Nielsen, 277 P
Leicester, 319
Martinez, 124 Parable 4th order arch, 34
MEXE, 119 Parabolic arch, 34, 35
Öferbeck, 320 Parapet, 251
Pauser, 124 Partial safety factor, 303, 304, 305
Purtak, 123 Pauser method, 124
response surface, 281 Per capita income
Tvedt, 276 historical, 38
MEXE method, 119 Perronet, 42
Minor-destructive tests, 202 Photogrammetry, 200, 209
Model Pier, 114
beam, 125 Piles, 238
compound beam, 133 Pillar, 29
Egermann, 188 Plasticity, 132
single beam, 125 Plasticity theory, 132
Warnecke, 188 Pont du Gard, 3
Index 365

Pre stressing, 250 Road traffic model


Principal compression stress, 340 DIN-report, 69
Probabilistic calculation, 340 Eurocode, 69
Probabilistic safety concept, 269 Roadway quality, 73
Probability of failure, 14, 266, 267, Romans, 37, 39
270, 343, 353 Rules
Probability function, 312 empirical, 100
Profile bars, 249 historical, 100
Proof equations, 191
Proof loading, 201 S
Purtak method, 123
Safety, 15, 139, 265, 266
Q Safety assessment, 265
Safety concept, 182, 268
Quasi-random number, 287 probabilistic, 269
semiprobabilistic, 301
R Safety factor, 139
global, 302
Radar, 201, 207 partial, 303, 304, 305
Radiography, 200 Safety index, 270, 333, 334, 335
Railroad traffic, 82 combination, 288
load border system, 85 goal values, 297
Railway load patterns, 85 Salt attack, 224
Random field, 294 Sealing, 237
Recalibration classes Second order reliability method,
road traffic, 71 274, 340
Refurbishement, 243 Semi-destructive test, 205
Refurbishment, 236, 240 Semiprobabilistic safety concept,
Regensburg bridge, 40 301
Reinforced concrete slab, 238, 244 Separation, 219
Reinforcement, 245 Serviceability, 192
non-metallic, 250 Settlement, 89, 232
Repair, 217, 234, 236 Shear strength, 190
Repoint, 238 Shotcrete, 238, 239, 250
Response surface, 283 Simulation
Response Surface Method, 281 road traffic, 76
Restoration, 251 Single beam model, 125
Rise, 22, 102 Sinus curve arch, 34
Risk based inspection, 20 Skewed arch, 30
Road traffic Skewed masonry arch bridges, 33
bridge class, 77 Skewness, 32, 313
load influencing factors, 72 Snow loading, 92
recalibration classes, 71 SORM, 274, 340
Road traffic loads, 67 Spalling, 223, 224
366 Index

Span, 22, 102 Thermography, 208


Spandrel wall, 25, 130, 142 Thickness
damages, 233 arch, 104, 111
Spare vault, 25 foundation, 112
Springing, 23, 27, 28, 111 Threaded rods, 248
Standard deviation, 313 Tomography, 208
Steel arch bridges, 47 Traffic, 72
Stiffness Trajan, 38
effective, 134 Transverse direction, 148
Stochastic structural analysis, 294 Types of failure, 101
Stone, 166, 167 Typology
Stone arch bridge, 21, 32 stone arch bridges, 32
elements, 22
Stone refurbishment, 241 U
Strength
masonry, 165 UIC 71, 83
shear, 190 Ultrasonic, 201, 206, 207
Strengthening, 235, 237
Stress distribution, 187 V
Stress-strain behaviour, 139
Stress-strain relationship, 171, 186 Vault, 21
Structural interventions, 18 Vehicle weight, 76
Sumerian, 36 distribution function, 74
Supplement, 236 Vibration test, 201
Surface Visual inspection, 200
failure, 138, 139
W
T
Weathering, 222
Technique biological, 226
evaluation, 200 chemical, 225
investigation, 199 mechanical, 226
repair, 236 physical, 226
Temperature loading, 89 Weibull distribution, 318
Term, 20 Width
arch, 20 effective, 148
vault, 21 increase, 252
Test Wind loading, 88
destructive, 202 Wooden arch bridges, 48
experimental, 208 Work time, 217
minor-destructive, 202
non-destructive, 201, 205 X
semi-destructive, 205
Testing, 141 X-ray microscope, 204